Independent Yugoslavia-like Ukraine

Alright, so let's say that in World War 2, there was a more distinguished Ukrainian independence movement, and was very good at pwning Germans. In order to get Ukraine back (or to keep it Communist), Stalin has Communist guys subvert the movement, but the leader of this movement turns out to be a Ukrainian nationalist, like a Ukrainian version of Tito. By 1945, Ukraine is independent or de facto independent, and though badly damaged by the war, is a functioning nation with a government, a giant vehicle manufactoring center, a large population, and good land.
Now, let's say that this Tito-like guy is really charismatic, and everyone Ukrainian likes him. And in foreign diplomatics, he is good with dealing with the superpowers. At the same time, he is a devoted socialist and Stalin thinks "Okay, it's fine as long as this guy does whatever I tell him." So the Tito-guy acts like a complete puppet for a couple years, but behind the scenes, he is soldifying his own power. Basically he turns his influence into power.
By the time Stalin finds out that this Tito-guy isn't any longer a puppet but an equal, it's too late. Stalin doesn't want to piss off the Ukrainians too badly (since that's where Russian food comes from), so he just does what he can. He keeps Ukarine as a strong ally, perhaps the strongest and most loyal Soviet ally. By the time Stalin dies in 1953, Ukraine led by Tito-guy is the most powerful ation in Eastern Europe short of the USSR (not much of a USSR without Ukraine but a USSR nonetheless).
Then Kruschev comes to power (asumming he isn't butterflied). Because he is an ethnic Ukrainian, the ties between the two nations are at an all time high, and there are a huge amount of cross-country relations. Tito-guy wants nukes, and Kruschev helps him get nukes.
But then with Kruschev getting ousted, things start going sour. Brezhnev turns out to be a douche, and although relations between Ukraine and the USSR don't get as bad as they did with China or Yugoslavia, Ukraine strats not being such a great Soviet ally, instead doing its own thing, notably making some small, Yugoslavian-like economic reforms. This is important.

Sometime in the mid/late-70s, Tito-guy dies. Now we have a trident in the road. Ukraine, in my view, can take a few pathes:
1. Become a North-Korea like crazy communist state, hating the Soviets (and the rest of the warsaw pact) and Americans alike.
2. Stay a Soviet nation in name, but get more and more capitalist, like China. When the Soviet Union collapses, this country will look awesome.
3. Stay the same and the government collapses something around 1990.

I'm liking 1 and 2.

Which one do you think is most plausible? Is any part of this scenario plausible? What ideas/opinion/comments do you have? Should I make a TL out of this?
 
3. They would exist on Soviet mercy. They could not afford defying Moscow.

What's the "3." for?

EDIT: Oh I get it.

I don't think that a successful Ukrainian independence movement was impossible. There were a lot of people who wanted independence, and the area was denied Soviet control for a large part of the war. Look at what Tito did in Yugoslavia. As long as he remained communist, the USSR was content with supplying him and his men. It's perfectly plausible that by the timk ethe German army in Ukraine is beaten, the independence wishes (and the organization of this movement) of the Ukrainian people will be too strong for Stalin to simply brush aside.

I think I'll make a short TL out of this, with two endings.
 
Last edited:
I would tend to agree that this is unlikely. russia has pretty much always considered the Ukraine an integral part of it since they conquest. Much of it was Soviet prewar, which gives Stalin another excuse to hold it and tack on as much as he can. Finally, it was the USSR's breadbasket, and they arent going to simply relinquish control that easily.

A better POD might be around 1920. Have the west back poland more, and have Pilsudski decide to set up a rump state in most of the modern Ukraine. Assuming that there is a close analogue to WWII (with nationalist/communist insurgents), the soviets would have a harder time absorbing a formerly free state which the allied with than taking more of a prewar soviet republic. Although this ukraine, even if Stalin chose to let it exist, would be under Moscow's thumb.
 

Germaniac

Donor
ASB for the simple reason that Stalin would not accept the importation of his nations food when he could simply occupy and get it for free
 
I don't think that a successful Ukrainian independence movement was impossible. There were a lot of people who wanted independence, and the area was denied Soviet control for a large part of the war. Look at what Tito did in Yugoslavia. As long as he remained communist, the USSR was content with supplying him and his men. It's perfectly plausible that by the timk ethe German army in Ukraine is beaten, the independence wishes (and the organization of this movement) of the Ukrainian people will be too strong for Stalin to simply brush aside.

I think I'll make a short TL out of this, with two endings.

Yugoslavia was separated from the Soviets by several (admittedly satellite) nations. The Ukraine is right next door. Yugoslavia is nastily mountainous (look at the trouble the Partisans managed to give the Nazis). The Ukraine is largely flat and excellent tank country. Yugoslavia is on the Adriatic sea and could be supplied by the West (short sea distance from Italy) if Tito turned to the West. The Ukraine could, sort of, be supplied from Turkey, if NATO could convince Turkey to act, which I doubt. The Soviet Black Sea fleet would probably sink any Turkish warships - at least until NATO navies tried coming into the Black Sea - but I doubt they'd want to.

Notice what Stalin did after WWII - he created a nice ring of satellite countries between himself and the hostile West. Admittedly the USSR borders on NATO Turkey, and Finland isn't a satellite, but any NATO invasion wouldn't come those directions, anyway. No way would he allow a Ukraine of doubtful loyalty right on his flanks.
 
Stalin could not just brush it aside?

You'd be surprised what you can brush aside with absolute power, an army of millions, and (later) nuclear weapons.
 
Top