Alternate successors to Stalin

[The Federalist]

What if Khrushchev hadn't succeeded Stalin? There are dozens of possible alternate candidates; Beria, Molotov, Kaganovich, Zhdanov, Voroshilov, Mikoyan, Budenny, etc. What if any of these people succeeded Stalin? Would there still be a Destalinization? How would the Soviet Union turn out under any of these people?

Beria, according to Wikipedia was at the forefront of liberalization after Stalin's death. Molotov lived until 1986, so unless he is ousted from power like Khrushchev, the he would rule the country for about three decades and under him, there would probably be no Sino-Soviet Split, in OTL, he agreed with Mao in calling Khrushchev a revisionist. Kaganovich was a Jew, how would that work out and affect Soviet relations with Israel. Budenny was a Cossack...

 

[Berra]

Mao wanted the job. Getting it was harder but stranger thiings have happened. Interesting challange and WI.

 

[Alcuin]

What if Khrushchev hadn't succeeded Stalin? There are dozens of possible alternate candidates; Beria, Molotov, Kaganovich, Zhdanov, Voroshilov, Mikoyan, Budenny, etc. What if any of these people succeeded Stalin? Would there still be a Destalinization? How would the Soviet Union turn out under any of these people?...

There's one example in my timeline below. I think I have Beria succeed Stalin, followed by Mrs Molotov (rather than Molotov himself) followed by Kruschev.

 

[Otis Tarda]

Beria seems to be nutaral candidate. What could happen? The most optimistic possibility is some kind of "perestroika", with USSR leaving it's satelites (which would lead to authoritarian goverments or some kind of liberalization, as well) and trying to regain it's power.
So, "perestroika", without dissolving USSR, without Yeltsin-like smuta, and without democratization, with USSR still being miitary superpower.

 

[eltf177]

Beria seems to be nutaral candidate. What could happen? The most optimistic possibility is some kind of "perestroika", with USSR leaving it's satelites (which would lead to authoritarian goverments or some kind of liberalization, as well) and trying to regain it's power.
So, "perestroika", without dissolving USSR, without Yeltsin-like smuta, and without democratization, with USSR still being miitary superpower.

I have to agree, only because Beria had so much power already (and was greatly feared). The question is; how long could he stay there? I don't think long, without Stalin to protect him I think his days woudl be numbered.

 

[MrHola]

How about Malenkov? Certainly some of Khrushchev's "hare-brained schemes" would never have been adopted, especially the obsession with corn ("we must raise corn in Yakutia and perhaps Chukotka") and the sale of the Machine Tractor Stations to the collective farms.

And foreign policy might be less based on bluff and bluster than in OTL. Some of Stalin's most irrational policies would be quietly dropped, and the Stalin cult would be toned down, but without any denunciation like the 1956 not-very-secret speech. Also, it should be remembered that it was Malenkov who first proposed devoting more resources to consumer goods instead of concentrating on heavy industry--a position that Khrushchev denounced as a "right deviation."

And when Malenkov said that a third world war would lead to the "end of world civilization" Khrushchev objected that this kind of talk was "theoretically mistaken and politically harmful." (I am not saying this to portray Khrushchev as a Stalinist fiend. On both the consumer goods issue and the nuclear war issue Khrushchev very likely agreed with Malenkov, and was simply denouncing the latter's "heresies" to win the support of unreconstructed Stalinists like Molotov for his own ascent to power.

I am merely saying that at least for a while Malenkov did seem *less* Stalinist than Khrushchev.)