Better health of Uncle Joe

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Let's assume that Stalin has not passed away in 1953 and continued his life, and thus a dictatorial rule, until 1964, when he finally died at age of 84.

Who do you think from high ranking party leaders would survive until that and who would be his successor then?

(no world war, of course)

Discuss


Just a false call...

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Brezhnev would be important regardless. I dont know if Khrushchev would have ever come to power.

[Хahar 🤔]

Brezhnev would be important regardless. I dont know if Khrushchev would have ever come to power.

Brezhnev was Khrushchev's underling, remember.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Khruschev was a member of Stalin inner circle fro, 1930s. Being a member of this circe was hazardous. I'm not sure if he would survive another cleaning.

For me there are no doubts, that in case of such long Stalin life, Molotov, Voroshilov and Beria would not live longer

[big bad fab]

You won't find the successor of a surviving Stalin in Stalin's inner circle.
All would have fallen before 1964...
Beria of course;
Khrushchev and Malenkov, smoother and less courageous, would have followed some time later;
Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich were too loyal to Stalin and would have fallen just because he would have wanted to kill those who would have been too powerful or would have fallen with Joseph.

So, I think we should look among the younger ones of the beginning of the 1950s (especially in October 1952, the 19th Congress) or among those promoted under Khrushchev in RL but who managed to stay after K's demise.

- First, there is the "loyal" stalinists, provided they survive until 1964:
Poskrebyshev, Stalin's personal secretary, but he wasn't a real leader
Ignatiev, head of the MGB and used by Stalin to counter-attack against Beria, is definitely a favorite, I think.
Ryumin, deputy head of the MGB and "author" of the "doctors' plot" could have climbed some degrees...

- Then, there is the group of the "original" stalinists but real opportunists, even if they managed, for some of them, to remain in power after 1953:
Suslov is a big contender. Harsh, able, politically astute.
Ponomarenko and Shepilov would have been possible, but only in the case that, in 1964, a consensus candidate would be required between many factions.

Saburov, especially, and Pervukhin are possible, but not enough "political" I think.

Yepishev (later head of the GLAVPUR under Brezhnev) would have been important too.

Brezhnev would have managed to go ahead, even without K.

- Then, there is the "false" khrushchevians or malenkovians, able to climb power's degrees whatever the leader:
Kosygin, Shelepin, Kirilenko, Grishin
Kosygin wasn't enough "political", Kirilenko was a bit young.
Shelepin and Grishin would have been able to be dangerous in 1964.

- Finally, "old" guys may have played a role, hadn't they been eliminated before:
Bulganin and Shvernik, but only for one or two years.


So, maybe Suslov, Ignatiev, Shelepin and Brezhnev as the main contenders.
And SUSLOV as my favorite.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You won't find the successor of a surviving Stalin in Stalin's inner circle.
All would have fallen before 1964...
Beria of course;
Khrushchev and Malenkov, smoother and less courageous, would have followed some time later;
Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich were too loyal to Stalin and would have fallen just because he would have wanted to kill those who would have been too powerful or would have fallen with Joseph.

So, I think we should look among the younger ones of the beginning of the 1950s (especially in October 1952, the 19th Congress) or among those promoted under Khrushchev in RL but who managed to stay after K's demise.

- First, there is the "loyal" stalinists, provided they survive until 1964:
Poskrebyshev, Stalin's personal secretary, but he wasn't a real leader
Ignatiev, head of the MGB and used by Stalin to counter-attack against Beria, is definitely a favorite, I think.
Ryumin, deputy head of the MGB and "author" of the "doctors' plot" could have climbed some degrees...

- Then, there is the group of the "original" stalinists but real opportunists, even if they managed, for some of them, to remain in power after 1953:
Suslov is a big contender. Harsh, able, politically astute.
Ponomarenko and Shepilov would have been possible, but only in the case that, in 1964, a consensus candidate would be required between many factions.

Saburov, especially, and Pervukhin are possible, but not enough "political" I think.

Yepishev (later head of the GLAVPUR under Brezhnev) would have been important too.

Brezhnev would have managed to go ahead, even without K.

- Then, there is the "false" khrushchevians or malenkovians, able to climb power's degrees whatever the leader:
Kosygin, Shelepin, Kirilenko, Grishin
Kosygin wasn't enough "political", Kirilenko was a bit young.
Shelepin and Grishin would have been able to be dangerous in 1964.

- Finally, "old" guys may have played a role, hadn't they been eliminated before:
Bulganin and Shvernik, but only for one or two years.


So, maybe Suslov, Ignatiev, Shelepin and Brezhnev as the main contenders.
And SUSLOV as my favorite.

Beside a fact he was an operative (even if very able and influental), not politician per se, Poskrebyshev was already dismissed in 1952 and according to number of sources he would be among a victim of the next purge, which Stalin haven;t launched because of his death.,

Interestingly, Vlasik, another close operative, was already dismissed too.

[big bad fab]

True about Poskrebyshev, but I assume that, because Beria is dismissed in 1953 or 1954, Poskrebyshev comes back ...
Well, it's a what-if !

But, you're right, he is not a "favourite".

What do you think of Suslov, Ignatiev and Shelepin ?

I haven't included your dear Semichastny, but I think he would not have climbed above Shelepin in 1964 in this case.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

True about Poskrebyshev, but I assume that, because Beria is dismissed in 1953 or 1954, Poskrebyshev comes back ...
Well, it's a what-if !

But, you're right, he is not a "favourite".

What do you think of Suslov, Ignatiev and Shelepin ?

I haven't included your dear Semichastny, but I think he would not have climbed above Shelepin in 1964 in this case.

Suslov was not as high ranking in 1953 and might survive (and go in ranks) until 1964. That's make perfect sense.