Stalin made such a profound impression that our image of Soviet history is largely determined by him. Just as Nazism is unimaginable without Hitler, so the Soviet form of communism is inconceivable without Stalin. The questions that occupied – and divided – Western historians of the Soviet Union concerned the causes of Stalin's victory in the 1920s and the nature and extent of continuity from the era of Lenin to the era of Stalin. What was it in Marxism and Leninism that made the rise of a Stalin inevitable, as some historians think, or at least possible, as others are constrained to admit? Were there genuine alternatives to Stalin? Stalin's rule also presents us with many difficult issues: Why did the tyrant kill so many? How did the Soviet form of totalitarianism function? How much support did he receive from the people? After 1953 the central issue for the leaders and peoples of the U.S.S.R. was how to deal with Stalin's monstrous legacy. It was obvious that the continued existence of the political system without Stalin was an impossibility, yet in 1953 neither the Soviet people nor the political elite could imagine a different government. For many years Soviet society groped for a new equilibrium, one that was not easily found.

KHRUSHCHEV'S VICTORY

Stalin suffered a stroke and after a brief illness died on March 5, 1953. His death must have brought relief to many who feared a new purge.