WI: Churchill or Stalin Die Instead of Roosevelt

[frustrated progressive]

What if Stalin or Churchill (or possibly both) die naturally on April 12th, 1945, while Roosevelt lives out his term?
Who’s death of the two would have a greater impact? (I think Stalin, considering that Churchill would be out of office in four months anyway). How would British/Soviet policy been altered (with the Conservatives perhaps under Eden, at least until the election). Would the British general election have been altered? Finally, who would have succeeded Stalin-and with what consequences?

 

[UCB79]

Perhaps one Nikita Khrushchev never comes to power? Perhaps no split between Russia & China, as a
Russia not headed by Stalin doesn’t try to boss Mao around? Just two random thoughts I’d like to put
out there, as a post-1945 world with Stalin dying in 1945 would, in MANY ways, be I think a very different
place....

 

[frustrated progressive]

Perhaps one Nikita Khrushchev never comes to power? Perhaps no split between Russia & China, as a
Russia not headed by Stalin doesn’t try to boss Mao around? Just two random thoughts I’d like to put
out there, as a post-1945 world with Stalin dying in 1945 would, in MANY ways, be I think a very different
place....

Going off various threads on alternate successors to Stalin, Malenkov and Molotov seem like the top two candidates for a reduced (like post-1953) role as Soviet leader, with Krushchev as an outside chance this early, not the default heir. Any of the three would likely have seen some liberalization (no Doctors' Plot, releasing the Soviet POWs, etc), if not anything forthright like the Secret Speech. On foreign policy, Malenkov was supposedly relatively dovish, Molotov hawkish, but without Stalin's prestige Soviet influence on the global communist movement may be weaker. Still, no Soviet leader was going to refrain from puppetiziing Eastern Europe when the Red Army held all the cards, so the basis of Soviet-American hostility will still be there, though its extent could be altered.
Beria is dead regardless, Zhdanov seems like he can only rise so far, ditto Kaganovich.

 

[Garrison]

What if Stalin or Churchill (or possibly both) die naturally on April 12th, 1945, while Roosevelt lives out his term?
Who’s death of the two would have a greater impact? (I think Stalin, considering that Churchill would be out of office in four months anyway). How would British/Soviet policy been altered (with the Conservatives perhaps under Eden, at least until the election). Would the British general election have been altered? Finally, who would have succeeded Stalin-and with what consequences?

As you say Churchill would have been out of office within a few months anyway. There was a pent up desire for social change, a sense that too much had been sacrificed by too many simply to go back to the status quo ante and with Labour having demonstrated during the war that it was fit to govern the 1945 GE result was all but inevitable regardless of who was Conservative leader.

 

[lionhead]

More interesting maybe would be Roosevelts attitude towards Japan. Would he drop the bomb?

 

[Tjakari]

More interesting maybe would be Roosevelts attitude towards Japan. Would he drop the bomb?

I don't see much of a reason why he wouldn't.

 

[frustrated progressive]

As you say Churchill would have been out of office within a few months anyway. There was a pent up desire for social change, a sense that too much had been sacrificed by too many simply to go back to the status quo ante and with Labour having demonstrated during the war that it was fit to govern the 1945 GE result was all but inevitable regardless of who was Conservative leader.

The only real question seems to be whether the turn against the Conservatives would have been even harder without Churchill at the helm?
(Or alternatively, perhaps that would be counterbalanced by the lack of Churchill's overconfidence and gaffes).

 

[Garrison]

The only real question seems to be whether the turn against the Conservatives would have been even harder without Churchill at the helm?
(Or alternatively, perhaps that would be counterbalanced by the lack of Churchill's overconfidence and gaffes).

I think it might be a wash, the one balancing out the other.

 

[Mort the Reaper]

Perhaps no split between Russia & China, as a
Russia not headed by Stalin doesn’t try to boss Mao around?

That assumes the communists still win the Chinese Civil War despite the butterflies from Stalin dying and FDR surviving. Certainly not impossible, but neither is a different outcome.

 

[Johnrankins]

I don't see much of a reason why he wouldn't.

Agreed, the bomb would still be completed and the reasons for dropping it would remain. I see him acting little different than Truman.

 

[Chris Nation]

The only real question seems to be whether the turn against the Conservatives would have been even harder without Churchill at the helm?
(Or alternatively, perhaps that would be counterbalanced by the lack of Churchill's overconfidence and gaffes).

Without Churchill, I think the Tories would have been doomed in 1945 because they genuinely would still be the party of Chamberlain and his allies.

However, if Churchill had conducted himself better during the campaign and had accurately read the public mood, then he could have done much better in the election. Most of this guff about the inevitability of the 1945 Labour landslide is just backward-looking rationalisation.

The Tories were consistently gaining in the polls throughout 1945, despite a genuinely terrible election campagin.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

I would be curious if the death of Stalin would cause any delays in the offensives of the Red Army at that time, would they still get as far west as they did OTL? Does it allow for the US/Western Allies to actually go in and grab all of Austria and Czechoslovakia adding them to the eventual NATO, assuming NATO is still formed? With someone other than Stalin it's also possible that the Cold War doesn't develop, instead you might have a tense situation between East and West like pre-world war 2.

 

[David T]

To quote an old post of mine (about Stalin's likely successor if he had died in 1946, but I don 't think 1945 makes that much difference):

***

Zhdanov was often mentioned as a possible successor to Stalin at the time. The problem, however, is that his health was already poor, due in part to heavy drinking. My guess is that even if he does come to power (he could indeed become General Secretary, though if he does so it might be as part of a deal limiting the General Secretary's power) he will not last too long (Stalin is sometimes accused of killing him, but it is just as plausible that without Stalin around, Zhdanov will die even earlier, since apparently Stalin did at least try to restrain Zhdanov's drinking [1]). After his death, a Malenkov-Beria alliance will (as in OTL with the "Leningrad Affair") probably take vengeance against his supporters. Molotov might serve as Prime Minister--a position not as powerful as it sounds (the fact that Rykov was kept on in the post well after the defeat of the "Rightists" and Bulganin for some time after the defeat of the "Anti-Party Group" is evidence of this). Khrushchev might survive the factional strife; he was helped by the fact that people tended to underestimate him, to think of him as a dumb muzhik, etc.

Soviet domination of the "people's democracies" was pretty much a fait accompli by 1946, and I don't see any plausible successor to Stalin reversing this. It is, however, possible that Malenkov and Beria will show more flexibility than Stalin on German unification--as they apparently did in 1953. But there would still probably be a considerable divergence between the terms they would want for German unification and those acceptable to the West.

[1] At least according to Khrushchev: "Before his death, Zhdanov had been in poor health for some time. I don't know what he was suffering from, but one of his ailments was that he had lost his will power and was not able to control himself when it came to drinking. It was pitiful to watch. I even remember that in the last days of Zhdanov's life, Stalin used to shout at him to stop drinking. This was an astounding thing because Stalin usually encouraged people to get drunk. But he compelled Zhdanov to drink fruit water and suffer while the rest of us were drinking wine or something stronger." http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSzhdanov.htm

 

[Resurgam]

It should also be remembered there are plans in place to replace Churchill relatively quickly and smoothly if he suddenly dies.

Not so much Stalin...

 

[marktaha]

Would Roosevelt have woken up to how evil Stalin was?

 

[Bellacinos]

More interesting maybe would be Roosevelts attitude towards Japan. Would he drop the bomb?

Contrary to popular opinion, the decision to drop the atomic bomb was never a debate in the eyes of the American government, it was a predetermined event and if it was available it was going to be used regardless of who was in the oval office.

 

[saluto]

Surely this results in a different Yalta? Attlee or a different British leader probably wouldn’t make the % agreement, and i think Molotov was more aggressive than Stalin when it come to Germany/Austria?

 

[mattep74]

If Stalin dies in early April 1945 i can see the front commanders at Oder tell the one high up in the hierarchy "You sort it out, if you do not mind, we will continue to plan the final offensive against Hitler. And since we do not have to fear Stalin anymore we will not move before we think it is ready."

 

[David T]

More interesting maybe would be Roosevelts attitude towards Japan. Would he drop the bomb?

There is no reason to think he wouldn't. The basic rationale--"we have to get the war over with as soon as possible to save American lives"--would still be applicable. "Thus, in view of the 1945 context, as shaped by earlier assumptions and decisions, the use of the A-bomb on Japan seems virtually inevitable. It was relatively easy for Truman. It seems highly likely, though not provable, that Roosevelt, had he lived, would have dropped atomic bombs on Japan." https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/13531

 

[Cryhavoc101]

What if Stalin or Churchill (or possibly both) die naturally on April 12th, 1945, while Roosevelt lives out his term?
Who’s death of the two would have a greater impact? (I think Stalin, considering that Churchill would be out of office in four months anyway). How would British/Soviet policy been altered (with the Conservatives perhaps under Eden, at least until the election). Would the British general election have been altered? Finally, who would have succeeded Stalin-and with what consequences?

Churchill pretty much did his important work in 1940 (particulalrly 1940) to 1942

But pretty much at any time he could be replaced once the boat was stabilised - which is probably from 1941 onwards - Britain is a Constitutional Democracy - every single person in government can be replaced very rapidly.

It is not a dictatorship - although his 'action this day' missives will be missed....in some cases

So his death in April 1945 would have virtually no impact on the UK

As to changes the British people were ready for a change and I think only Labour could deliver that at the time