From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:10:55 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) on Mon, 03 Mar
2025 13:26:43 -0500 typed in alt.history.what-if the following:

Representative Trantis wrote:
Let us for the moment suppose that somehow Stalin manages to remain healthy
and lives until 2000.
How would Soviet and world history be different?

If Stalin had lived (great photo of him OP) until 2000, I seriously doubt that Vladimir Putin would be the problem that he is now.

If Stalin had not died in 1953, that are the odds of the Soviet >>Union lasting until 2024?

I'd say very small since the odds of him living long enough to get him through the crisis of 1991 leaves him NOT there in 1941 which means
much of Russia (if not all of us) would be speaking German.

Not sure what is meant here.

The Guinness Book of World Records of years past used to recount
the myths of extreme longevity among Georgians/Abkhazians having
been fed by Stalin's desire to believe he would live a very long
time...by 2000 he would have entered his 120s like a number of
those exaggerated claimants.

But for sure Stalin played a huge role in 1941 - not all positive -
and you can't draft a plausible scenario with him able to both play an important role in 1941 AND 1991.

If we are talking about the historical figure born in 1879 the POD has
to be based on his real history being continued by his not dying,
at whatever point his health departs from OTL toward the dreams of longevity-propaganda.

Obviously the "de-Stalinization" of the mid-late 1950s would not have
happened in the USSR or in the satellite states,and Malenkov, Khruschchev,Brezhnev,and so on would have had power only to the
extent and time he permitted it...but would his constant purging
have led to collapse?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.history.what-if

On 12/07/2025 03:27, Louis Epstein wrote:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:10:55 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

mummycullen@gmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (MummyChunk) on Mon, 03 Mar
2025 13:26:43 -0500 typed in alt.history.what-if the following:

Representative Trantis wrote:
Let us for the moment suppose that somehow Stalin manages to remain healthy
and lives until 2000.
How would Soviet and world history be different?

If Stalin had lived (great photo of him OP) until 2000, I seriously doubt that Vladimir Putin would be the problem that he is now.

If Stalin had not died in 1953, that are the odds of the Soviet
Union lasting until 2024?

I'd say very small since the odds of him living long enough to get him
through the crisis of 1991 leaves him NOT there in 1941 which means
much of Russia (if not all of us) would be speaking German.

Not sure what is meant here.

The Guinness Book of World Records of years past used to recount
the myths of extreme longevity among Georgians/Abkhazians having
been fed by Stalin's desire to believe he would live a very long
time...by 2000 he would have entered his 120s like a number of
those exaggerated claimants.

But for sure Stalin played a huge role in 1941 - not all positive -
and you can't draft a plausible scenario with him able to both play an
important role in 1941 AND 1991.

If we are talking about the historical figure born in 1879 the POD has
to be based on his real history being continued by his not dying,
at whatever point his health departs from OTL toward the dreams of longevity-propaganda.

Obviously the "de-Stalinization" of the mid-late 1950s would not have happened in the USSR or in the satellite states,and Malenkov, Khruschchev,Brezhnev,and so on would have had power only to the
extent and time he permitted it...but would his constant purging
have led to collapse?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Personally I believe he would either have resigned, as did Molotov who
did live to a ripe old age, or be forcibly removed from office (possibly through having had an unfortunate accident involving a third-storey
window). In either case, it is doubtful (IMAO) that he would have had
much significance beyond, say, 1965 when he would be 86 years old.

Glasnost and perestroika would still have happened at about the same
time, plus or minus 10 years, because Ronnie's SDI initiative, aka
economic warfare, would have had either the same effect as we saw, or a
Soviet first strike while it was still possible for them to do so. The
latter scenario would have had major changes to subsequent history.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2