Continued Existence of the Soviet Union

Romulus Augustulus · Sep 12, 2005

Now what I have in mind is a strong, economically prosperous USSR surviving to this day. How would this happen? Well, China has managed to retain its form of government and not collapse into a bunch of nation-states through its ability to conduct large-scale economic reforms, unlike the USSR, which had a pretty stagnant economy and was pretty stagnant in other aspects as well, so that when Gorbachev did attempt to reform, both the shock of it and the rather slipshod manner in which it was carried out was the final blow to the Soviet system.

The Soviet Union of today would probably be fairly liberal when it came to social issues, no longer being oppresive or totalitarian, or at least no more totalitarian than today's Russian Federation. It would also have a large, fairly healthy economy. Furthermore, it would be in a state of permanenent detente with the US, perhaps even with an acknowledged end to the Cold War and withdrawal from the Eastern European satellite states, perhaps even German reunification.

So for a POD, I'm guessing economic reforms in the 1970s, which might require a POD in the late 1960s, maybe having something to do with the events of 1968. Does anyone else have any other ideas?

Straha · Sep 12, 2005

why not invert the USSR/China as in the USSR reforms and stays strong and china either pulls a north korea or impldoes without reform?

Romulus Augustulus · Sep 12, 2005

Straha said:
why not invert the USSR/China as in the USSR reforms and stays strong and china either pulls a north korea or impldoes without reform?

I'd prefer that China remains strong as well. It gives us the potential for some interesting Great Power confrontations between a still-strong USSR and a rising China...

Straha · Sep 12, 2005

Have some fictional reformer take power in the USSR during the 60's or 70's.

Romulus Augustulus · Sep 12, 2005

Straha said:
Have some fictional reformer take power in the USSR during the 60's or 70's.

Do you think that the events of 1968 having a greater impact in the Soviet Union, and a more ambitious and practical Mikhail Gorbachev becoming the nucleus of a reform movement as the Soviet Union experiences a second revolution are plausible?

luakel · Sep 12, 2005

Romulus Augustulus said:
Do you think that the events of 1968 having a greater impact in the Soviet Union, and a more ambitious and practical Mikhail Gorbachev becoming the nucleus of a reform movement as the Soviet Union experiences a second revolution are plausible?

There's an idea. What if, instead of invading Czechoslovakia, the USSR actually looks at some of Dubeck's reforms as good? Greater freedoms would help keep the USSR around quite alot.

Straha · Sep 12, 2005

Romulus Augustulus said:
Do you think that the events of 1968 having a greater impact in the Soviet Union, and a more ambitious and practical Mikhail Gorbachev becoming the nucleus of a reform movement as the Soviet Union experiences a second revolution are plausible?

sure seems likely to me

Romulus Augustulus · Sep 12, 2005

Straha said:
sure seems likely to me

Now I wonder how there could be demonstrations of young people in the streets in 1968 in the Soviet Union? Oh, how?

chunkeymonkey13q · Sep 12, 2005

The Soviet Union could have remained a superpower had they only reformed their economy so that they shifted from mainly heavy industry, to lighter and high-technology industries as well. In addition, they would need to focus on developing agricultural production, which had been lagging since the Stalin years. Finally they would have needed to put a stop to the rampant corruption and inflation which plagued the country. With this accomplished, they would be well on their way to establishing a great nation to rival anything in the west or east.

Romulus Augustulus · Sep 12, 2005

chunkeymonkey13q said:
The Soviet Union could have remained a superpower had they only reformed their economy so that they shifted from mainly heavy industry, to lighter and high-technology industries as well. In addition, they would need to focus on developing agricultural production, which had been lagging since the Stalin years. Finally they would have needed to put a stop to the rampant corruption and inflation which plagued the country. With this accomplished, they would be well on their way to establishing a great nation to rival anything in the west or east.

I'm thinking them of being something like a lesser Japan today.

Revitalizing the system...I think that a POD around the late 1960s would do the trick.

BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEAS!?

luakel · Sep 12, 2005

Romulus Augustulus said:
BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEAS!?

Well, I just had one a few posts back... Maybe the USSR attacks Afghanistan a decade early?

Romulus Augustulus · Sep 12, 2005

luakel said:
Well, I just had one a few posts back... Maybe the USSR attacks Afghanistan a decade early?

In 1969? Wait a moment...1969...the Ussuri River border conflict...maybe that could escalate, not really result in much militarily, but shake up the Soviet Union enough so that China goes on much the same path as in OTL, but so does the USSR?

Paul Spring · Sep 12, 2005

Was there anyone who was really reform-minded in the higher echelons of power during the Brezhnev years? Even then, I just can't see Brezhnev approving reform. He strikes me as being extremely conservative - not in the political sense, but in the sense that he didn't want to rock the boat and make any major changes.

Maybe if Khruschev hung on to power longer, when he eventually died or was forced out someone who was much more willing to try reform than Brezhnev could have succeeded him. I don't remember enough about Soviet history and politics to know who a good candidate might have been, though.

AMBOMB · Sep 13, 2005

Romulus Augustulus said:
Now what I have in mind is a strong, economically prosperous USSR surviving to this day. How would this happen? Well, China has managed to retain its form of government and not collapse into a bunch of nation-states through its ability to conduct large-scale economic reforms, unlike the USSR, which had a pretty stagnant economy and was pretty stagnant in other aspects as well, so that when Gorbachev did attempt to reform, both the shock of it and the rather slipshod manner in which it was carried out was the final blow to the Soviet system.

The Soviet Union of today would probably be fairly liberal when it came to social issues, no longer being oppresive or totalitarian, or at least no more totalitarian than today's Russian Federation. It would also have a large, fairly healthy economy. Furthermore, it would be in a state of permanenent detente with the US, perhaps even with an acknowledged end to the Cold War and withdrawal from the Eastern European satellite states, perhaps even German reunification.

So for a POD, I'm guessing economic reforms in the 1970s, which might require a POD in the late 1960s, maybe having something to do with the events of 1968. Does anyone else have any other ideas?

The only way you could have an economically prosperous USSR would be for it to institute economic reforms along the lines of China. But, that wouldn't necessarily mean political liberalization. It hasn't with China.

Max Sinister · Sep 13, 2005

I once read an AH about the GDR taking over the FRG after they discovered enormous amounts of gold on East German territory. Maybe the only way if you want them to keep their economics policy.

Mayhem · Sep 13, 2005

I heard that the man the Soviets orignally had to run the occupation of Berlin was a very practical reformer, but he died a few weeks in. Perhaps if he'd made it a little longer he might have pushed along some early reforms under Kruschev or Breshnev. Can't find his name on Wikipedia though

chunkeymonkey13q · Sep 13, 2005

Or maybe the POD could be much earlier, in the mid twenties or so, where Leon Trotsky and not Joseph Stalin wins the power struggle within the communist party. Trotskies ideas were much more positive and so could have helped the early Soviet Union avoid the problems it faced under Stalin’s leadership.

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy · Sep 13, 2005

Trotsky would have tried exporting the revolution and eventually cause an "imperialist" reaction. Britain, France, Japan, Poland, Romania, the Baltic States, and Finland would have kicked his ass, making me very happy.

Ivan Druzhkov · Sep 13, 2005

I was thinking that, in order to get a good liberal Gensek in the 1970's, we'd need some "liberal" other than Khrushechev to ascend after Stalin's death. While Nikita did have some reforming tendencies, he constantly pissed off the Stalinist old guard (who were still in pretty good shape back then) and kept engaging in brinksmanship, which hardly helped with relations with the Americans. Add on to that Khrushechev's farm program (which really went nowhere), and you have more than ample reason for the conservatives to depose him and install Brezhnev.

As for fixing the Soviet Union, I'll go for the standard laundry list of decollectivizing agriculture (I recall there was a Kazakh agricultural manager in the 1970's who experimented with this "link system" of small cooperatives. He got kicked out of the Party on charges of "theft of state resources" for his troubles.), loosening up the Five-Year Plans, holding off on the democracy for a while (look where it got Gorbachev!), and negotiation with the West and China to tone down the military tension so that we can whittle down the military budget.

However, these steps won't turn Russia into the United States. To be honest, there's nothing I could come up with that would make Russia work that well. The Americans have just had so many breaks in their history that it puts them in a category all by themselves.

Incidentally, there was some hope of reform in the early part of Brezhnev's reign. However, that ground to a halt after the events of 1968.

ShawnEndresen · Sep 13, 2005

Hm. Have Khruschev commit some major gaffe in '54...not quite big enough to get him shot, but big enough that he's unlikely to ever become gensek. Perhaps we can have him too publicly close with Beria and Malenkov, so that with Beria dead he frantically comes to an arrangement with M.--if he can run the Ukraine as he pleases, he will endorse anything M. likes for the Union as a whole? If Khruschev and Malenkov hang together, possibly with Bulganin, can they prevent a resurgence of conservatives like Molotov, Kaganovich and Voroshilov? And K.'s near total autonomy in Ukraine sets the precedent for a looser arrangement between Soviet republics, even if they are all totalitarian at home.

I'm not sure what you're going for here...a USSR with some civil liberties (but not too many) and some market economy (but not a sound and highly functional one)? How different is that from what really happened?