WI The Soviet Union survives?

Say through some miracle the USSR survives, what would the effects be?

For the purpose of this WI say the USSR is no longer communist, but rather then breaking apart a new constitution or something is made between the various soviet states that still makes them all one government. Maybe the only thing controlled by the soviet government is foreign relations and defense while everything else is given to the different part.

Would the entirety of the USSR become like the Russia of today? Or would it be more successful?

less successful, for one thing for this to work they'd have to use force to keep it together. what russia had in Chechnya in the late 90's would being going on in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine. also there'd be all out war between the USSR and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Okay, well, is there any way other then armed force to get the states to stay together? Something like the US?

Baradas said:

Okay, well, is there any way other then armed force to get the states to stay together? Something like the US?

Click to expand...

Most of the republics might manage to be held together, but others would likely depart.

They would adopt an China-esque system. (Although they won't say they did.)

Wendell said:

Most of the republics might manage to be held together, but others would likely depart.

Click to expand...

I will admit that I am pretty dumb considering Soviet politics/nationalism, so which republics would stay and which would leave? Or rather, which are more likely to leave and more likely to stay?

Baradas said:

I will admit that I am pretty dumb considering Soviet politics/nationalism, so which republics would stay and which would leave? Or rather, which are more likely to leave and more likely to stay?

Click to expand...

The ones most likely to stay are Russia itself and the Republics in Central Asia. Republiblics that might stay include Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. All of the Republics completely within Europe likely secede, but of these, the Baltic Republics are the most likely to seek independence.

I think if it weren't for Brezhnev's stagnation, the Soviet Union could have enjoyed the good economics that happened under Khrushchev. If one of his successors took over in, say, 1970, instead of Brezhnev, and was then replaced by Gorbachev in 1985, the people in the non-Russian republics might actually want to stay with the Soviet Union.

In 1991, the USSR adopts a new constitution, based on Gorbachev's liberal polices. The nation is ready for such a change, and the "Unbreakable Union" indeed endures. An election is held at the end of the year, and Gorbachev is elected President (or General Sectary) of the Soviet Union. Low and middle level elections are also held in the regional "Soviets," and for the first time since 1917 the people actually choose their own leaders. In some republics, there are calls for independence, but they are overshadowed by the reality of the successful economy, amongst fears of Western domination if such wishes became reality. The people in the republics are satisfied with their new government, and ultimately decide to stay with the Soviet Union.

The result? If things go well, that area of the world won't be so crappy. the smaller republics would have the benefits of being part of a large, strong nation, and the larger republics wouldn't have so much chaos. Perhaps the Soviets would endorse a somewhat socialist blend of free-market economics, similar to those of Japan and Western Europe. Politically, the Soviet Union could continue to counterbalance the power of the United States while worked towards better relations between both nations), and thus the whole Iraq war could be avoided.

Around, the whole world, the influence of not one, but two democratic superpowers could be a blessing. The problem of the unipolar world could be avoided, thus allowing people around the world to feel more secure (since the US wouldn't have such overarching authority), with neither the US or USSR being able to wield such power over the entire world (since they would geopolitically counterbalance one another). This would encourage medium-sized nations to gain more standing in their respective regions, without the constant threat of the United States in the way.

This is not to say that there would be no foreign intervention when one nation attacks another (i.e. the Gulf war), but simply that it wouldn't just be one single nation (in this case the US) "deciding" who can have nukes (Israel & Iran), who can attack who (okay for Saddam to invade Iran but not Kuwait), among various other things.

Okay, I'm rambling.

I doubt there's any way to make certain states stay in Soviet Union. Baltics as a good example.

Originally posted by Wendell
Republiblics that might stay include Georgia

Click to expand...

Hmm, I doubt about this, at least that soviet army intervenes, at early 1991 Georgia was under a nationalist government (Gamsajurdia) that was supported greatly by the most part of the population, in fact the republic was formally in rebellion against Moscow and de facto independent.

In any case georgians could suffer a soviet intervention when Abjasia and South Ossetia like OTL decides to remain loyal to the new Soviet Union, a soviet intervention to defend the rights of the abjasians and ossetians to continue within the Soviet Union could be used also as a form to pressure to Georgia in which in exchange of recognising his independence, Georgia should recognize the formation of an Abjasian SSR and the reunification of South Ossetia with North Ossetia (is Gorbachev under the command, so I suppose that he could accept Georgia as independent if this accept Abjasia and South Ossetia as part of the Soviet Union).

Reminds me of this thread...

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=76802

Although he exaggerates the ease with which the USSR might have fixed it's economy, Kunlunshan is almost certainly right in that we need a fairly early POD for this to work: the USSR was a rotting hulk by 1991, and and most of the states didn't see much benefit to be had in sticking around. OTOH, if the USSR succeeds in reforming it's economy, will it have much incentive to reform politically? (See, China).

Bruce

I was in Russia when they announced that the USSR was being replaced by the Commonwealth of Independent States ( in December 92 I think). Things were falling apart , they 'floated' the rouble and it sank from £1= 1.10 rbls to £1= 100 rbls in about a week.

We were in a hotel in Murmansk, could only get hot water for breakfast but found that in a separate bar of the hotel they were selling rhubarb juice.

That night the maitre d' slyly got us to pay more than normal for our dining places because there was a striptease that night.. the first ever public striptease in Murmansk, apparently; it was broken up the police after about 20 minutes of mostly cloted dancing. Anyway, for a dining table laden with good food and drinks, plus the 'cabaret'- we got charged the equivalent of 50p each....

So the USSR was in a bad way then. Gorbachev's 'treatment' of the sick USSR was good, but the patient still died.

BUT if maybe the following had happened, the USSR might have lasted longer:

- the USSR fights an even more ruthless war in Afghanistan and wins, and the Soviet leadership threatens to do the same to any dissident republic.
- Gorbachev becomes leader a little bit earlier, straight after Andropov instead of after Chernenko.
- Global warming kicks in a little earlier, giving slightly better harvests
- oil prices and other raw material prices rise for some reason, giving the USSR a better trading position.

The Soviet peoples have come through years of hardship with a great deal of resilience; with a bit of luck Gorbachev could have kept the USSR limping along a bit longer. But in the long term, it was better for the people that it collapsed roughly when it did....

Wendell said:

The ones most likely to stay are Russia itself and the Republics in Central Asia. Republiblics that might stay include Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. All of the Republics completely within Europe likely secede, but of these, the Baltic Republics are the most likely to seek independence.

Click to expand...

Armenia and azerbaijan were already fighting for Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988 so they voluntary staying in one country is illusory. Azeris also rioted against Soviet rule so Azerbaijan staying in is not likely. Possible by force, Chechnya-style.

Ditto for balts. Depending on how things turn Poland might give covert aid (if WarPac is dissolved and iron curtain falls).

Belarus has strong chance of staying. Ukraine about even, depending on situation.

Moldova is tricky. I'd say 60% of staying.

Stans. Hmmmm. Muslim sentiment is boiling but not that dangerously.

Depending on how things develop and why exactly SU stays together, such as it does.

Originally posted by vorkosigan
Gorbachev's 'treatment' of the sick USSR was good, but the patient still died.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Gorbachev treatment, perestroika + glasnost was that with the way that he intended to implement these two polities was like if a doctor had give a treatment to a pacient to energetic physical exercise and jogging to revitalize the circulation and strenghtening the musculation... this could work with a patient of 20-40 years, the problem was that Gorbachev try to apply this to an old man of 60-70 years, also the problem with Gorbachev was that apparently once that it seemed that the reforms were creating more problems that solving instead of stop and think if his way was correct for the sick Soviet Union made the great solution of trying to go an all escape solution, putting more radical and accelerating the machine....

aktarian said:

Armenia and azerbaijan were already fighting for Nagorno-Karabakh in 1988 so they voluntary staying in one country is illusory. Azeris also rioted against Soviet rule so Azerbaijan staying in is not likely. Possible by force, Chechnya-style.

Ditto for balts. Depending on how things turn Poland might give covert aid (if WarPac is dissolved and iron curtain falls).

Belarus has strong chance of staying. Ukraine about even, depending on situation.

Moldova is tricky. I'd say 60% of staying.

Stans. Hmmmm. Muslim sentiment is boiling but not that dangerously.

Depending on how things develop and why exactly SU stays together, such as it does.

Click to expand...

I think that what Republics stay or go depends on the precise POD.

Wendell said:

I think that what Republics stay or go depends on the precise POD.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

IMO, the best chance for the Soviet Union to survive is to kick the economy into high gear in the 1960s, and start shifting into capitalist socialism then, not the mid-1980s. The Union was collapsing even then.

Afghanistan is not gonna be won. Period. The Soviets easily controlled the government under Najibullah, but they had no chance in hell of keeping the entire country. That's why they ultimately pulled out - same situation as Vietnam and Iraq for the US - they just couldn't win it. If you can, avoid that ugly war altogether.

Trying to keep the entire country together would be extremely difficult. The Baltics you can forget about - give them an opening any time in history and they will go for independence. Azerbaijan and Georgia are also probably gone, Armenia might only stay if the Turks decide to play hardball with them - but then they have the problem of having hostile countries on three sides. Not good.

Belarus would probably stay if the economic situation is good. Ukraine is about 50/50 either way. The economic situation also would be the deciding factor for the stans.

The best way back to health for the USSR might be in 1973, actually. In the wake of the energy crisis, the USSR has the resources to smoke OPEC right across the face, or at least dump enough oil onto the world markets to make the embargo toothless or have a lot less of an effect. That would REALLY score points in Western Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, which was hard hit by the embargo.

In the wake of OPEC, even if the USSR aimed to have a price at half of OPEC, that would earn them a pile of hard currency - just what would be needed to rewire the economy and fire things up again. If they did it right, the rebuilt economy would be able to move towards aspects of capitalism - which if glasnost and perestroika came around in the mid-late 1980s, it would still cause plenty of bumps but not the USSR's disintegration.

OperationGreen said:

Weren’t high Oil prices a must for the Soviet economy? I thought they desperately needed the high oil prices to keep the economy ticking over. When OPEC are not selling. They have a captive market just like Russia is finding in EU now.

Click to expand...

You are correct, high oil prices where the only thing that kept the economy going. The Soviets spent so much on defense that without the high oil prices, the domestic quality of life would of dropped further, as it did in the 1980's.

As for the Soviet Union surviving, they need major economic reforms. The problem was when they tried to emulate Chinese reforms, they failed. The reason was that China was more agricultural when they refomed, so a majortiy of people still had their jobs. However, the Soviet Union was majorly industrial so there was no fall back for the Soviet people. Finally when the Soviet Union collapsed, it left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. They did not want to keep the name of a country where they had no freedoms.

A restructuring of the agrarian sector, based on the the Chinese model.

A move away from Heavy industry to consumer electronics.

I attended a reading of a military historian at my college, he basically said that: "The Sovjets knew the economic clock was ticking in 1970."

The Baltics are indeed going. Unless enough Russians can pile into them (Estonia may stay).

Georgia may try it but it would be a lot easier for Russia to keep it down with force hidden away from the world down there.

Belarus could definatly stay. Its the most enthusiastic about bringing it back.