I had thought Kruschev was pretty well disliked by everyone. His reforms to the oblast and compulsory 1/3rd turn-over of officials at internal elections had angered the Party, the Virgin Lands campaign and his support for Lysenko had left Soviet Agriculture a complete mess and he had annoyed the KGB to the point the head backed the coup against him. He had two of the main pillars of the state against him and no Soviet leader can survive that. And that was before the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I'm also unsure it would help, I didn't think he was that impressed with anything outside Agriculture/Chemistry. There is an anecdote on the wiki that the big thing he took away from his visit to IBM was not demands for more Soviet computers, but the idea for self-service staff cafes. This does not seem promising for a Soviet electronics revolution.
Hm. I would say Khrushchev really pissed off certain groups and was overall less popular than Brezhnev would be overall in his term as leader. But that's not to say he was without the tools to disarm the plot against him. Critically, Brezhnev & co were able to get up to steam because Khrushchev underestimated them (he'd had warnings that something was afoot, and as soon as the plotters moved he quickly realized their ambitions, but did not take sufficient precautions when he raced back from holiday on the Black Sea to Moscow), so if Khrushchev had cancelled his holiday or returned for Moscow ready for a real fight, I think he'd have had excellent odds against the plotters. Remember that Khrushchev had already squashed a similar plot back in 1957. Indeed, comparing the details between the two plots I find it amazing the difference of Khrushchev in 1957 and Khrushchev in 1964 - I do wonder if he simply was too old and tired for another such fight?
And Khrushchev wasn't only impressed with agriculture and chemistry. He was obsessed with the new in general (on balance I think it was one of his virtues, but by gum could he get over-enthused as well). As far as the anecdote about the IBM visit... Well... Self-service cafes would have been a much cheaper idea to implement and would have much wider applicability in the Soviet Union at that time. Maybe we are silly for thinking that Khrushchev should have been impressed by the high technology, as opposed to the innovative ways of organizing lunch? Similarly, with agriculture and chemical industry, it's quite practical for a Soviet leader after Stalin to get so keen about those economic sectors. The chemical industries of Germany and the United States were a major reason why both states were rich, powerful and leaders in the industrial world. And of course, since the Soviet Union was heavily agricultural (even by Gorbachev's time it was 20% of the economy), meaning that even small improvements to agricultural productivity would have a big effect since they would effect such a wide part of the economy. So Khrushchev's focus on these areas isn't some failing, it's him actually being a good leader. It's the next level down the decision tree where he goes hog wild for corn where Khrushchev fell short.
Indeed, it's the practicality of trying to develop agriculture and chemical industry that makes me doubt that a shift from agriculture to electronics manufacturing or the like would be at all a plausible PoD.
how do you make good little consumers in a communist country?
Eastern Europe proved it was pretty easy to get consumers under a communist system. The problem is getting consumer demand that stimulates product improvement.
Yup. And so were American ones...who got most of their money from Government contracts.
Heh, good point.
fasquardon