WI: Stalin lived the 60s?
- Thread starter TPL99
- Start date
I think that he learned the lessons of his last purge, so no another round of purges.
The Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't happen. Stalin is not an adventurist like Khrushchev is.
He would have turned the Soviet Economy into a consumer-oriented one and heavily expand the military. Birthrates would increase as well to keep the USSR on par with the west for years to come (and reversing the effects of WWII). Butterflies might produce a less warm relations with the USA, and in turn JFK might have not been assassinated. The Soviets might take the May Speech of JFK seriously, and they will be the first ones to go to the Moon. That's my take.
The Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't happen. Stalin is not an adventurist like Khrushchev is.
He would have turned the Soviet Economy into a consumer-oriented one and heavily expand the military. Birthrates would increase as well to keep the USSR on par with the west for years to come (and reversing the effects of WWII). Butterflies might produce a less warm relations with the USA, and in turn JFK might have not been assassinated. The Soviets might take the May Speech of JFK seriously, and they will be the first ones to go to the Moon. That's my take.
.
The Doctor plot say otherwise
In any case Stalin will be in his 80's and so it's difficult to understand if really, totally or partially in charge.
let's say that the URSS will have 10 years more of his 'marvelous' leaderships...it will be no good for the economy, for the foreign policy (colder relations with the West and Yugoslavia, he will try to poke the west in any occasion but at least any strong reaction will make him retreat), for the russian people and the east europeans.
At least the sino-soviet split is postponed.
In which case he's stuck with nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy. It may have been a gamble, but it was one that paid off, the missiles were pulled out soon after.
And would have been pulled out either way, IIRC. Those were Jupiters, which could only be launched from an open launch platform, which made them incredibly vulnerable, were liquid fueled at a time when the USA was developing and deploying solid fuel boosters ICBMs able to reach the targets in roughly the same time as the Jupiters with no advance preparation necessary beyond turning the key. Those missiles were bound to be disposed of.
True enough. Though I do not see why would anyone want to replace them... ICBMs were plenty good enough.
Back to topic, didn't Stalin want to do something about the Jews in USSR? Was that the Doctor plot?
Short range means they can hit before everyone has time to take cover. That was the whole issue with Cuba, the US didn't like the USSR reciprocating their placing missiles so close the government wouldn't have time to react once they received word of a launch.
But if they need two hours to prepare the Jupiter's for launch? And if the ICBMs can get to USSR in 20 - 25 minutes? Plus SLBMs.
deathscompanion1
Banned
The issue wasn't the lack of warning time it was the fact that the USSR's missiles and stockpile were shit so it needed to rely on bombers which had to fly thousands of miles through contested airspace. Nuclear war until the mid/late sixties involved SAC destroying the USSR and Europe getting pasted whilst North America walks away unscathed.
Which is why the americans were so anxious about Cuba, because suddenly they could get hurt. Oh, and they did have missiles, just not enough to actually do much. It was still and incredible bluff, the Russians managed to get the missiles pulled out much earlier than they'd have done otherwise, and they did it on something like a quarter of the US arsenal, much of which couldn't have hit Britain never mind the US.
Last edited:
Another thing that would determine the condition of Stalin's USSR in the 60s is agriculture.
In 1948 Trofim Lysenko, a Botanist who had the ear of Stalin, denounced Medelian genetics in favor of his own theory which was then made official doctrine which would turn out to be a complete failure.
His theories ended up costing the lives of academics who spoke out against it and put Russian Biology years behind until Stalin's death. With Stalin around longer Lysenko's theories might stay around too and cause even more trouble.
In 1948 Trofim Lysenko, a Botanist who had the ear of Stalin, denounced Medelian genetics in favor of his own theory which was then made official doctrine which would turn out to be a complete failure.
His theories ended up costing the lives of academics who spoke out against it and put Russian Biology years behind until Stalin's death. With Stalin around longer Lysenko's theories might stay around too and cause even more trouble.
Yes, if Stalin lived another ten years you would have a far worse view of the USSR when it comes to the mass media portrayal over time. The war in the East would be today considered in the West a black on black war instead of a grey vs. black war retroactively as somewhat happened anyway when the Cold War started, but not to the extent it would have if Stalin lived another decade or so.
Here are some things to consider.
1) Stalin's survival might complicate an ending to the Korean War. I believe he desired the US and China to keep bleeding each other. Stalin's successors wanted to reduce tensions. I don't think Stalin cares.
2) It was Stalin's death that allowed Austria to become neutral and Soviets end their occupation zone. I don't think the status of Austria will change while Stalin is alive.
3) After Stalin's death, there was a wave of resentment against the Communists in Eastern Europe. East Germany, Poland, and Hungary all had disturbances. With Stalin alive, I don't think we'll see this in the open. However, I think the cauldron will boil even more and really explode later - perhaps while Stalin is still alive or after he finally dies.
4) There will be no reconciliation between Tito and Moscow. If Stalin lives, there is a very good chance that 1) Yugoslavia enters NATO, and 2) Tito makes certain critical economic and political concessions. Tito will still be in charge, but I can see him supporting Milovan Dilas and becoming "democratic socialist" to make sure Western support is kept. IOTL, the death of Stalin lead to a rapprochement with Moscow, and Tito instead accepted a "non-aligned" role while remaining Communist. With Stalin living and still hostile, Tito could make a decisive break and enter the Western camp for survival.
5) Stalin's continued economic policy will produce economic misery for ordinary Soviet citizens. An additional ten years is just going to impair long term Soviet economy even further.
6) Without Khruschev's Secret Speech, the Communist parties around the world remain Stalinist.
7) Stalins' survival may have interesting repercussions with France's war in Indochina. However, there are too many unknowns as to how this will be impacted.
I think the end result is that initially the Soviet Union seems "stronger" than OTL to outsiders, but that it becomes weaker internally as it continues to extract more resources from its territory that are actually its seed corn.
1) Stalin's survival might complicate an ending to the Korean War. I believe he desired the US and China to keep bleeding each other. Stalin's successors wanted to reduce tensions. I don't think Stalin cares.
2) It was Stalin's death that allowed Austria to become neutral and Soviets end their occupation zone. I don't think the status of Austria will change while Stalin is alive.
3) After Stalin's death, there was a wave of resentment against the Communists in Eastern Europe. East Germany, Poland, and Hungary all had disturbances. With Stalin alive, I don't think we'll see this in the open. However, I think the cauldron will boil even more and really explode later - perhaps while Stalin is still alive or after he finally dies.
4) There will be no reconciliation between Tito and Moscow. If Stalin lives, there is a very good chance that 1) Yugoslavia enters NATO, and 2) Tito makes certain critical economic and political concessions. Tito will still be in charge, but I can see him supporting Milovan Dilas and becoming "democratic socialist" to make sure Western support is kept. IOTL, the death of Stalin lead to a rapprochement with Moscow, and Tito instead accepted a "non-aligned" role while remaining Communist. With Stalin living and still hostile, Tito could make a decisive break and enter the Western camp for survival.
5) Stalin's continued economic policy will produce economic misery for ordinary Soviet citizens. An additional ten years is just going to impair long term Soviet economy even further.
6) Without Khruschev's Secret Speech, the Communist parties around the world remain Stalinist.
7) Stalins' survival may have interesting repercussions with France's war in Indochina. However, there are too many unknowns as to how this will be impacted.
I think the end result is that initially the Soviet Union seems "stronger" than OTL to outsiders, but that it becomes weaker internally as it continues to extract more resources from its territory that are actually its seed corn.
More Stalinist architecture. Eastern European countries suffer much, much more, possibly being the focal point of new political actions. Jews wiped out or forced out.
Stalinś new purges, at least within the territory of the USSR proper, are probably more efficient and less socially damaging, as Stalin has learned his lesson from WW2. Plus, the Russian/Ukrainian/younameit peoples have already been more or less "trained," while the Germans and West Slavs still need to get put in their place.
Stalinś new purges, at least within the territory of the USSR proper, are probably more efficient and less socially damaging, as Stalin has learned his lesson from WW2. Plus, the Russian/Ukrainian/younameit peoples have already been more or less "trained," while the Germans and West Slavs still need to get put in their place.