AH Help - U.S.S.R. Related

Hey all, this is just a quick question regarding a possible timeline that I think I may attempt at some point in the future and I wanted a general assumption of the subject itself. While, I've seen some topics around here about a world without the U.S.S.R., I've not really seen one on the U.S.S.R. surviving past its OTL date (1991), though I'm sure it's been done before on other sites and the like.

So my question is: how could the U.S.S.R. realistically survive up until, say, the year 2000 or beyond that? How might that affect the U.S.'s politics? And, if it still occurs, the War on Terror (or perhaps something analogous to it)?
 
I'm no expert on the Soviet Union or its history, but I've read many times on this forum that the rot that brought down the Soviet Union began during Stalin's reign, and then there are some who think the rot began at the Soviet Union's inception. So how do you remove that rot? Either remove Stalin or reform your economic model to something similar to today's China are the usual answers I've read.
 
Kill Gorby in, say, '75. It won't save the USSR, but it might enable it to drag on for another decade.
 
I think that the "rot" was always around, but IMO it wasn't unfixable until after the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you were to get rid of Brezhnev and his stagnation and replace him with a Gorbachev, that would work. OTL Gorbachev tried to do too much in too little time, probably because he had no other choice since the mess Brezhnev left him was simply too great.

Had this happened, the USSR internally might be similar to what Russia is today, except with less chaos, a strong military, more influence on the world, less AIDS, and so on. It would be like China is today economically but less crazy.
 
USSR ....thay just renamed to former Russia and having losts of problems with those who do not agree with the empire.
I hope nobody here believes that by change of political regime all people living in the region go somewhere, and the country starts to be inhabited by.....name it.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Let me thank you personally for using the correct abbreviation for the Soviet Union (USSR) rather than the incorrect version which is sadly so widespread on this discussion board (*cough cough "SU" *cough cough). In an age which seems so ignorant and disrespectful of proper grammar, spelling and so forth, it is nice to see a champion of correct and proper communication come to the fore.
 
USSR ....thay just renamed to former Russia and having losts of problems with those who do not agree with the empire.
I hope nobody here believes that by change of political regime all people living in the region go somewhere, and the country starts to be inhabited by.....name it.
Actually the USSR was composed of 15 republics (SSRs), IOTL. After late 1991, when the USSR collapsed, the 15 constituent SSRs became 15 independent nations w/ the Russian Federation, the former RSFSR, being the main succesor state of the former USSR. The Russian Federation comprises about 75% of the land area of the former USSR, w/ the remaining 25% of the former USSR divided between the other 14 former SSRs.
 

Hnau

Banned
The USSR could not survive inevitably, as I assume all authoritarian regimes cannot survive in the long-term due to eventual popular action. Furthermore, one cannot use the idea of 'economic reforms' to create a USSR that stretches into the 21st century, in which all the problems associated with the country are taken away through certain developments. The PRC has established a precedent, yes, along with others, that economic freedom with certain socialist characteristics can create conditions for economic growth than can keep the population happy and at least passive enough with 'what they got' to keep from overthrowing the regime. But, as noted by the Chinese Communist Party themselves, if the state isn't able to keep up economic growth and low unemployment isn't sustained, the people are going to have something to fight against. And, as we know, capitalism does happen to follow patterns and cycles of boom and bust, no matter how managed it is.

Furthermore, the precedent of the PRC to keep stability the way they have might be fundamentally Chinese. Their Communists were only established after World War II, and were credited with success in wartime conditions to establish peace and modernizing services to the people. While the Chinese can point to the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and other Maoist policies that were blatantly destructive to the Chinese people, the Russians at 1990 could point to Brezhnev era stagnation, to a long series of purges and political repression, to gulags littered throughout Siberia and Russian history, to collectivization, to horrors and atrocities not just attributed to one personality, as in China (Mao Zedong), but to Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev and others (Beria, Sverdlov, etc). Those responsible for the horrors of Russian Communism was the Communist Party, not just one deviant (as Mao in China). So, one can not equate something that worked in China with what might have worked in Russia. There are a lot of other factors: cultural, ethnic, demographic, economic that also fall into place differentiating Russian and Chinese Communists.

Back to the initial prompt: how could the USSR survive to 2008? Here's the tough part, despite the initial PODs: we live in a world where computers, instantaneous communication, and the internet are consuming more and more of our lives. In fact, the 2000s might be known as the decade when it became a global phenomenon. As glasnost proved: the Russian people, with the conditions they had lived through during their generation, could not stay loyal to the state when they were able to voice their opinions. The freedom of speech was wonderful and incited people to attach a lot of passion to it, and it turned out to be directed against the oppressive regime they lived in. Getting rid of glasnost and perestroika is a vital first step to continue the Soviet Union, but the invasion of the Internet into Russia could accomplish what glasnost accomplished in the 80s and 90s.

The Soviet Union would definitely benefit from new information systems. Computers could work wonders in the management of the huge and complex economy of the post-industrial world. With the capacity to store information and calculate mathematically certain necessities, the computer would literally revolutionize the Kremlin and the way the Soviet Union is run. It could help hone economic controls to perfection, so that instead of the free market keeping products balanced correctly with prices, the state could actually figure out the same. Perhaps this kind of digitalized central economic planning could even be better than the free market of today, if I might be so bold.

The problem is that the use of the computer brings the use of the Internet, eventually, which the Soviet Union might believe to be a great tool for the collectivization of culture and society within the USSR. In fact, the Internet really does fit the requirements of a 'socialist wonder machine' that the Soviet Union would have loved. In reality, the Internet would have brought the Soviet Union down even faster: like glasnost only multiple times more effective.

I guess I shouldn't say the Soviets would adopt the internet immediately. They'd realize the potential problems with the Internet, I would think, if Gorbachev or another reformer was at the head of the Union. The Internet is still necessary, due to its advantages in nuclear war scenarios, but in the USSR it would be limited to the USSR and under heavy state and military control. Perhaps universities as well, maybe even for certain professions but it would be monitored.

Now that we're passed the Internet/Computers discussion, what you need is Kruschev to stay in power the longest he can, and to be followed by someone who is between Brezhnev and Gorbachev in political affiliation. There needs to be room for economic growth, diversification, adaption to world markets, etc. etc. but the leader can't be so much a utopian reformer that he gets rid of the political and economic controls that make the USSR possible.

There's some more specific things that could have been done for a USSR in 2008, I'll come back to this thread later.
 

ninebucks

Banned
I think its necessary to disentangle the fall of the Communist Party and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The CPSU, as it existed by the 1970s, was probably unsaveable, and doomed to collapse, but the USSR, as a political unit, only collapsed because no-one in 1991 thought it worth saving, (they were much more interested in lining their own pockets).

The CPSU could lose the monopoly on power, but the new 'democratic' order could chose to keep the SSRs united, (or as many of them as possible), and keep the name 'USSR'.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The USSR was doomed already in the 60's. There was no real will anymore to fight for the system. People followed the production quotas, not more, no less. Shoe factories produced only right foot shoes to easier accomplish the goals. Nail factories created nails too small for any practical use to save material.
 

MrHola

Banned
I once send a PM to LacheyS about this very subject. This is what came out of it.

Let's say Brezhnev dies earlier, in 1963, it's a stretch, I know. Alexey Kosygin would have succeeded as Secretary-General.

Without Brezhnev, Kosygin would have been the leader of the coup. He would have attempted to implement improvements in consumer goods and light industry, which would have been helpful long-term but difficult short-term.

I would give it ten to fifteen years to implement, so by 1980, the Soviet economy has turned around, but by that stage, it is no longer "Communist". His successor would most probably be somebody whom he mentored over that period of time.

I think that the Cold War would have dissipated into a cold peace by the time 1980 had rolled around. The Soviets would still be a geopolitical, but not necessarily an ideological, enemy.
 
The USSR could survive for a long time if its leaders had adopted the Chinese strategy of opening itself gradually to the free market without surrendering political control. Unfortunately, in the OTL Gorbachev opened up the Soviet economy and weakened the power of the communist party and chaos ensued.
 

Hnau

Banned
I think I posted quite a bit of information on the effects of the Soviet Union adopted Deng-eseque policies. It worked for China, it probably wouldn't do the same in the Soviet Union counting much different factors. And, even if you could get a market economy working, all it takes is a sudden reversal in economic growth in a capitalist 'bust' and the entire system is screwed.
 
I think I posted quite a bit of information on the effects of the Soviet Union adopted Deng-eseque policies. It worked for China, it probably wouldn't do the same in the Soviet Union counting much different factors. And, even if you could get a market economy working, all it takes is a sudden reversal in economic growth in a capitalist 'bust' and the entire system is screwed.

Not to mention that 'market economy' went against Soviet Communism. Marz wasn't that good at economics.
 
Could it be possible to just prevent the 15 republics from separating?

like a democratic USSR.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Could it be possible to just prevent the 15 republics from separating?

like a democratic USSR.

Except for the Baltics, yeah, probably.

I don't even see why a change of name is necessary following the ousting of the CPSU. A new constitution could: maintain the Union, re-empower the Soviets (the workers' councils), contain committment to Socialist principles, (many democratic states do this, the first sentence of the Indian Constitution states that India is dedicated to, amongst other things, the socialist cause), and maintain/establish the autonomy of the individual Republics.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The fall of USSR had a twofold cause.

One was economic.

The other were demographic, USSR was the Russian Empire in new clothes, and from the 40ties the Russians became first a plurality instead of a majority and continued to shrink until it hit around 40%. Together with the reemergence of nationalism as force USSR couldn't stay together.

The solution to the second one could be no WWII, without the killing of millions of Russians, Belarussian and Ukrainians they would have stayed a greater majority. Beside the victory made Stalin annex areas, which came to serve as the stronghold of reeemergency of nationalism; the Baltic States and West Ukraine without these areas you would likely see a bigger Soviet identity. Beside without WWII Stalin would likely have continued a brutal politic of assimilation and settlement of Central Asia, which would transformed the entire area into a Russian majority area.
 
I think that the "rot" was always around, but IMO it wasn't unfixable until after the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you were to get rid of Brezhnev and his stagnation and replace him with a Gorbachev, that would work. OTL Gorbachev tried to do too much in too little time, probably because he had no other choice since the mess Brezhnev left him was simply too great.

At that time, not Gorbachev, but what about Andropov?
 
Im a fan (ie lack intricate knowledge on the subject) of Bukharin and Kosygin as 'saviours' if you will. Many say the rot began with Stalin, after all he was responsible directly and indirectly for the deaths millions and the destruction of agriculture which would have certainly aided the USSR in the long run, as mentioned, particularly in population and Russian loss of ethnic dominance.

As such Bukharin is my primary character in any 'saved' Soviet Union scenario. Many say NEP was a intermediary measure and to Lenin I'm sure it was. However Bukharin, Rykov and others on the Right were happy to continue 'mixed economy' solutions to pull the USSR out of the carnage of 1914-1921. I can see them relying on Co-Ops of varying degrees for pragmatic reasons and selling the Soviet Council element of this to placate the Left, not to mention taking a page out of Stalin's book and parading as Lenin's heirs, continuing 'his' NEP and only holding power over the commanding heights of the economy.

No collectivisation means no famines which means no mass exodus from the cities to find food as did take place and as such Soviet Industry would grow steadily as opposed to its virtual collapse at the start of the first 5-Year Plan. It would also be more aimed at light industry and consumer goods as well, which domestically would be a major boon for citizens.

"See the Great Depression ravage the decadent Capitalist West, while here in the glorious Soviet Union, there is a radio by every fireside and a turnip in every pot"!

That kinda thing. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, the removal of this "Tractor Production Up 15%" spiel in place of a more pragmatic consumer based approach would improve the CPSU's standing considerably as a popular government.

Also I'm sure Western Investment in the USSR would continue under a more corporate friendly leadership, I mean if Ford of all guys was willing to deal with Stalin, Bukharin could probably get Mercedes and Toyota :D

That said repression no doubt continue but fewer Soviets would die at the hands of thier government and fewer would starve. I find the Great Patriotic War extremly changed by butterflies here but even that, I dont think Stalin heavy industry fetish could equal the effect of millions more people, an effective officer corps, less nationalist resentment, a less guilable leader and a more natural economy.

Also Bukharin's willingness to encourage other Communist Parties to join in leftist Popular Fronts might very well set the stage for greater European intergration.

So all in all I think as the Soviet Union prepared for its 91st anniversary, Bukharin would have needed to be in at the start. Though I doubt it could have China's clout, I think highly capitalised, technocratic state would exist as a major economic and political player.

So all in all not a paradise but probably more PRC than Russian Federation, up to you which is better...
 
Top