WI Yeltsin died during August Coup 1991?

Don_Giorgio

WI Yeltsin was assassinated during the August coup (maybe shortly before his famous speach on top of a tank)?
Would the conspirators have succeded then to maintain Soviet Union in a more Stalinist way by turning back to the policies before Gorbachev with Vice President Yanayev as President (who was Acting President after Gorbachev's depose) and maybe Cryuchkov (Head of KGB) as Secretary General?
What would be the reaction then of USA and EU?
 

ninebucks

Banned
They didn't want political power. They wanted to kill the Soviet Union and divide its corpse between them. They were oppurtunist thieves.
 

Don_Giorgio

Dont u think that this would renew the dying Cold War? The coup was organized by Soviet hardliners so they could hold USSR united under a Breznev-style Government...
I think under their rule USSR couldnt had dissolved...
 

Archdevil

Don_Giorgio said:
Dont u think that this would renew the dying Cold War? The coup was organized by Soviet hardliners so they could hold USSR united under a Breznev-style Government...
I think under their rule USSR couldnt had dissolved...
Click to expand...

I think he's referring to Yeltsin and the leaders of Belarus and Ukraine at the time.

The three of them basically decided to devide the USSR between them.
 

Wendell

Faeelin said:
Well, the Russians in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania might have a few reasons why; and it doesn't seem as if independence has brought great things to the Stans.
Click to expand...

The Stans were devastated by Soviet Communism more than any other part of the U.S.S.R. Central Asia would be more viable today were it not for Soviet rule there.

That said, the local elites of Central Asia in 1991 were upset when the Soviet Union collapsed on them. If this scenario preserves the USSR, it will only include the RSFSR and Central Asia, and likely include further reforms to Soviet governance.
 

Don_Giorgio

Soviet Union was the counter-weight to USA...
By eliminating Soviet Union USA grew to big international cop who struggles to maintain his authority against an enemy without a face...
At least until 1991 the"enemy" did had a face...
 

Faeelin

Banned
Wendell said:
The Stans were devastated by Soviet Communism more than any other part of the U.S.S.R. Central Asia would be more viable today were it not for Soviet rule there.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But this doesn't mean that they are better off today than they would be if the USSR hadn't collapsed in 1989.

Obviously the best thing would have to been for Bactria to civilize the area millenia ago.

So what would you propose?
Click to expand...

A reforming USSR obviously. Not sure how to get it, though.

But note I didn't propose anything. I merely pointed out that portraying the USSR of the 1980s as something that deserves to die ignores the fact that it hasn't been all smiles and sunshine since its overthrow, and arguably has been worse for a good many people.
 

gtrof

There's no way in my opinion that the Coup plotters could have held onto power even if Yestlin had bought it. The Soviet public was largely fed up with the system and were defiently not going to support the Emergency Committee. Not even the military was supported them, remember the number of Russian soldiers who sided with the 'rebels' at the Duma.
 

Wendell

Faeelin said:
Absolutely. But this doesn't mean that they are better off today than they would be if the USSR hadn't collapsed in 1989.

Obviously the best thing would have to been for Bactria to civilize the area millenia ago.



A reforming USSR obviously. Not sure how to get it, though.

But note I didn't propose anything. I merely pointed out that portraying the USSR of the 1980s as something that deserves to die ignores the fact that it hasn't been all smiles and sunshine since its overthrow, and arguably has been worse for a good many people.
Click to expand...

While I agree that things have not been rosy in most of the former USSR since its collapse, I would dispute that the world would be better if the Soviet bear was still with us in the same capacity as it was in 1982.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Wendell said:
While I agree that things have not been rosy in most of the former USSR since its collapse, I would dispute that the world would be better if the Soviet bear was still with us in the same capacity as it was in 1982.
Click to expand...

Depends. Eastern europe's worse off; the Caucasus and Central Asia are better off, the Baltics are worse.... Russsia itself? Dunno.

A USSR that survived to today would not be the same as it was in 1982, anymore than the PRC of today is the same as it was in 1982.
 

Wendell

Faeelin said:
Depends. Eastern europe's worse off; the Caucasus and Central Asia are better off, the Baltics are worse.... Russsia itself? Dunno.

A USSR that survived to today would not be the same as it was in 1982, anymore than the PRC of today is the same as it was in 1982.
Click to expand...

Are the Baltics worse off?

Furthermore, things take time to get into order. The Thirteen states of 1782 were worse off than those of 1774.
 

MerryPrankster

Faeelin said:
A reforming USSR obviously. Not sure how to get it, though.

But note I didn't propose anything. I merely pointed out that portraying the USSR of the 1980s as something that deserves to die ignores the fact that it hasn't been all smiles and sunshine since its overthrow, and arguably has been worse for a good many people.
Click to expand...

What if the Soviet people, particularly those of the Baltics, Ukraine, etc. don't want to be part of this "reformed" USSR? The Baltics bolted as soon as they could and there was violence--I believe Soviet tanks and soldiers were deployed against protestors.

Should they be forced to remain within the Union "for their own good"? I would expect Tielhard to say that, but not you.

And furthermore, citing the Russians of the Baltics like you did is like saying it would better for the British to have crushed the American Revolution b/c things would be better for black people (MEJ flashbacks occurring). Except I think the Russian population of the Baltics is smaller than that of the black population of the 13 Colonies.

Obviously things aren't "smiles and sunshine." You're making the perfect the enemy of the good--things may be far from perfect, but that doesn't mean that the alternative (the Soviet Union of the 1980s) is better.
 

MerryPrankster

Wendell said:
Are the Baltics worse off?

Furthermore, things take time to get into order. The Thirteen states of 1782 were worse off than those of 1774.
Click to expand...

Agreed. IIRC the westernmost former Warsaw Pact and Soviet states are better off owing to their economic integration with the rest of Europe.
 

Wendell

MerryPrankster said:
Agreed. IIRC the westernmost former Warsaw Pact and Soviet states are better off owing to their economic integration with the rest of Europe.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Sure, there are problems, but these are gradually being remedied. It will take a long time to fully undo Sovietization.
 

Faeelin

Banned
MerryPrankster said:
Obviously things aren't "smiles and sunshine." You're making the perfect the enemy of the good--things may be far from perfect, but that doesn't mean that the alternative (the Soviet Union of the 1980s) is better.
Click to expand...

I don't get why people keep peutting words in my mouth.

I never said the USSR and the states in the Warsaw Pact were better off than they were today. I said to assume as you are that the USSR was unsalvageable and that its death meant that the world would automatically be better off makes no sense, especially when there are conflicts, like the one between Armenia and Azerjibaan, the Chechnyan mess, the plight of Russians in the Baltics, the war in Tajikstan, etc.

My reaction was to your strange belief that the USSR deserved to be "killed".
 

MerryPrankster

Faeelin said:
I don't get why people keep peutting words in my mouth.

I never said the USSR and the states in the Warsaw Pact were better off than they were today. I said to assume as you are that the USSR was unsalvageable and that its death meant that the world would automatically be better off makes no sense, especially when there are conflicts, like the one between Armenia and Azerjibaan, the Chechnyan mess, the plight of Russians in the Baltics, the war in Tajikstan, etc.

My reaction was to your strange belief that the USSR deserved to be "killed".
Click to expand...

The USSR in the 1980s was ravaging Afghanistan and spending vast sums of money sustaining the Communist war effort in Angola (and there's more--those are just the two most obvious examples).

Before you morally equivocate with US policy in Latin America, more people died in Afghanistan (1.5 million Afghans and 15,000 Soviet troops) than died in the various banana-republic insurgencies combined. In fact, the Afghan-Soviet War overshadows the post-Soviet wars as well in terms of numbers of dead (although thanks to the Russian brutality in Chechnya, it might be close).

It may be unpleasant to be a Russian in the Baltic states, but it was also unpleasant to a Balt or for that matter any other minority in the Soviet Union. This does not justify the behavior of the people in the Baltic states, but as far as numbers of persecuted/oppressed/killed people, the current situation is the lesser evil.

And it sure looked like you were saying the peoples of the Soviet empire (or at least some of them) were better off today than before.

And the peoples of the Baltics did not want to be part of ANY USSR, even a reformed one. The lightening of the Soviet hand under Gorbachev made it possible for them to express their feelings on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top