AHC: Reform the USSR

[Napoleon IV]

And who will the Soviet Union develop without Stalin?

In my TL it's a guy named Yakov Sverdlov, who IOTL was General Secretary (well Chairman of the Secretariat as it was called at that point) before Stalin, but in 1919 died, probably of Spanish flu although there are indications he was beaten to death in by anti-Semitic workers (he was Jewish).

If we are going for 1928-1929 death of Stalin in all probability it will be Zinoviev, Molotov, Kaganovich, Rykov, or Kirov.

 

[MichaelF]

The problem is that by 1928-1929, the Soviet leadership has already developed a hostility and contempt for the peasants. You really need a leadership that's willing to pursue industrialization but not at the peasant's expense. (And yes, any industrialization will probably have SOME negative impact on the peasants but we need to avoid the complete disregard for their welfare that happened in OTL.)

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

In my TL it's a guy named Yakov Sverdlov, who IOTL was General Secretary (well Chairman of the Secretariat as it was called at that point) before Stalin, but in 1919 died, probably of Spanish flu although there are indications he was beaten to death in by anti-Semitic workers (he was Jewish).

If we are going for 1928-1929 death of Stalin in all probability it will be Zinoviev, Molotov, Kaganovich, Rykov, or Kirov.

Yes, but why is Sverdlov doing better than Stalin? I mean, he is as authoritarian and marxist than Stalin and has probably no comprehension for claims like democracy, better working conditions or a functioning consumer goods industriy - claims who lead to protests and thus to the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[wilji1090]

What about Nikolai Ryzhkov? Granted, I don't know much about the Soviet politicians all that well, but Ryzhkov did advocate for a slow transition into a market economy somewhat like how Deng Xiaopeng did in China. What if he came to power instead of Andropov or Gorbachev?

 

[Dunning Kruger]

What about Nikolai Ryzhkov? Granted, I don't know much about the Soviet politicians all that well, but Ryzhkov did advocate for a slow transition into a market economy somewhat like how Deng Xiaopeng did in China. What if he came to power instead of Andropov or Gorbachev?

He wasnt high enough in the hierarchy to succeed Andropov or Brezhnev. And I think Ligachev was the #2 under Gorbachev although even he wasnt high enough to follow Chernenko.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Yes, but why is Sverdlov doing better than Stalin? I mean, he is as authoritarian and marxist than Stalin and has probably no comprehension for claims like democracy, better working conditions or a functioning consumer goods industriy - claims who lead to protests and thus to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Well unlike Stalin Sverdlov isn't a paranoid nut, so there are no purges and much more interparty democracy. One of the big issues in the Soviet Union was that Stalin killed most of the best and brightest, leaving incompetents like Brezhnev as his successors. That pretty well limited the level of reform that the Soviet leadership could imagine or pull off. Sverdlov's reign has also been far less brutal, to the point where the Holodomor refers to a Nazi policy rather than a Soviet one. It is also 1941 in the TL, so if the Soviet Union does fall it would be a long way off.

He wasnt high enough in the hierarchy to succeed Andropov or Brezhnev. And I think Ligachev was the #2 under Gorbachev although even he wasnt high enough to follow Chernenko.

Correct, Ligachev was Gorbachev's deputy, although the two's relationship did become rocky later on when Ligachev started to criticize Gorbachev. Also you would have to get rid of Gorbachev for Ryzhkov to become General Secretary, since Gorbachev was the clear successor to Chernenko, and Andropov wanted Gorbachev to succeed him, but that didn't work out (Chernenko's death, which meant that the Soviets would have 4 General Secretaries in about 2 years, along with his general incompetence convinced the Soviet leadership that someone younger was needed).

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Well unlike Stalin Sverdlov isn't a paranoid nut, so there are no purges and much more interparty democracy. One of the big issues in the Soviet Union was that Stalin killed most of the best and brightest, leaving incompetents like Brezhnev as his successors. That pretty well limited the level of reform that the Soviet leadership could imagine or pull off. Sverdlov's reign has also been far less brutal, to the point where the Holodomor refers to a Nazi policy rather than a Soviet one. It is also 1941 in the TL, so if the Soviet Union does fall it would be a long way off.

Correct, Ligachev was Gorbachev's deputy, although the two's relationship did become rocky later on when Ligachev started to criticize Gorbachev. Also you would have to get rid of Gorbachev for Ryzhkov to become General Secretary, since Gorbachev was the clear successor to Chernenko, and Andropov wanted Gorbachev to succeed him, but that didn't work out (Chernenko's death, which meant that the Soviets would have 4 General Secretaries in about 2 years, along with his general incompetence convinced the Soviet leadership that someone younger was needed).

Gorbachev actually isnt that difficult to get rid of. His performance as head of agriculture while on the Secretariat was lacking to say the least. Ag production declined 25% or more from 1978-1982. Its actually kind of amazing that his career survived it.

 

[fasquardon]

Correct, Ligachev was Gorbachev's deputy, although the two's relationship did become rocky later on when Ligachev started to criticize Gorbachev. Also you would have to get rid of Gorbachev for Ryzhkov to become General Secretary, since Gorbachev was the clear successor to Chernenko, and Andropov wanted Gorbachev to succeed him, but that didn't work out (Chernenko's death, which meant that the Soviets would have 4 General Secretaries in about 2 years, along with his general incompetence convinced the Soviet leadership that someone younger was needed).

I've often wondered what Ligachev would have looked like as Gen Sec. He strikes me as far more capable of reforming the system than Gorbachev was (most of his criticisms have been proven right as we've uncovered more data about how the Soviets collapsed, and he has the advantage of being a true believer, which means that he could provide moral leadership where Gorbachev offered only tactical political moves). On the other hand, I've not read any deep examination of him, so it may be his subtle flaws could be as bad or worse than Gorbachev's subtle flaws.

And apparently, the reason why Chernenko was chosen as Gen Sec wasn't so much that Gorbachev was denied power by hard-liners, but Gorbachev felt that he needed a year or two to prepare himself for the job and he figured Chernenko would live just about long enough, but not too long.

Certainly, as I've read more about the man, Chernenko comes across as more of a reformist than the popular history paints him as.

Communism is all but dead; what has replaced it is Great Russian nationalism under a crude mask of pan-Slavic brotherhood.

I think you are dead wrong about just about everything you talk about (a war with China seems to me to be an excellent way to lose the cold war right quick - China was always a diversion to the real struggle at the European end of the USSR). However, the quoted bit is where I think you are most wrong - Great Russian nationalism could, IMO, only corrode the USSR. Even an honest pan-slavic nationalism could only be corrosive, if a little less so. The Soviet Union had too many non-slavic citizens for that to be viable and adopting an ideology that as part of its basic nature reduced Central Asians, Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Germans, Jews and all the other smaller nations to second-class citizens is ideological suicide (and, if you ask me, the unofficial slavic nationalism of the USSR was one of the factors that eventually contributed to its destruction).

fasquardon

 

[Napoleon IV]

I've often wondered what Ligachev would have looked like as Gen Sec. He strikes me as far more capable of reforming the system than Gorbachev was (most of his criticisms have been proven right as we've uncovered more data about how the Soviets collapsed, and he has the advantage of being a true believer, which means that he could provide moral leadership where Gorbachev offered only tactical political moves). On the other hand, I've not read any deep examination of him, so it may be his subtle flaws could be as bad or worse than Gorbachev's subtle flaws.

And apparently, the reason why Chernenko was chosen as Gen Sec wasn't so much that Gorbachev was denied power by hard-liners, but Gorbachev felt that he needed a year or two to prepare himself for the job and he figured Chernenko would live just about long enough, but not too long.

I don't know that much about Ligachev, other than that he was Gorbachev's deputy before breaking with him towards the end.

As for Chernenko the big problem wasn't that he represented a return to the Brezhnev Era (although in many ways he did) it was that he was basically dead on the day he took power. He was already terminally ill, barely attended Politburo meetings (Gorbachev's job during that time was basically to wait until Chernenko called in sick and then run the country), and was the living embodiment of the gerontocracy that the Soviet leadership had become. Even when he died that news, which for any other General Secretary would dominate the news cycle for days if not weeks, was relegated to page 2 of Pravda, with page 1 being Gorbachev's ascension. So that theory that he was a stopgap so Gorbachev could prepare makes a lot of sense.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

I don't know that much about Ligachev, other than that he was Gorbachev's deputy before breaking with him towards the end.

As for Chernenko the big problem wasn't that he represented a return to the Brezhnev Era (although in many ways he did) it was that he was basically dead on the day he took power. He was already terminally ill, barely attended Politburo meetings (Gorbachev's job during that time was basically to wait until Chernenko called in sick and then run the country), and was the living embodiment of the gerontocracy that the Soviet leadership had become. Even when he died that news, which for any other General Secretary would dominate the news cycle for days if not weeks, was relegated to page 2 of Pravda, with page 1 being Gorbachev's ascension. So that theory that he was a stopgap so Gorbachev could prepare makes a lot of sense.

Ligachev has a really good autobiography. It's hard to know how much to believe but some of his anecdotes about the broader situation are outstanding. Ive only skimmed but want to read in more depth.

As to Gorbachev ascending, there are a couple different versions. One is Chernenko took the initiative and somewhat annointed himself. The second is that Ustinov, old and dying himself, decided that he didnt want to deal with change in his final days.

 

[fasquardon]

Ligachev has a really good autobiography. It's hard to know how much to believe but some of his anecdotes about the broader situation are outstanding. Ive only skimmed but want to read in more depth.

You mean "Inside Gorbachev's Kremlin"? I've just bought that one. Hoping it proves worth the money.

fasquardon

 

[Dunning Kruger]

You mean "Inside Gorbachev's Kremlin"? I've just bought that one. Hoping it proves worth the money.

fasquardon

Yes. As I said, I have only skimmed it and mostly for anecdotes about Andropov and early Gorbachev. But he shares some pretty interesting insights.