Khrushchev stays: A better and surviving U.S.S.R.?

I am of the opinion that if Nikita Khrushchev had remained the the leader of the Soviet Union until his OTL death that he general quality of life in the SU would have been much better than OTL and that the Soviet Union would most likely still exist today. With his focus on light industry and consumer goods, a much happier population would be less likely to disband the union 20 years after he died in 1971. I believe a more favorable outcome of the Virgin Lands Campaign or Cuban Missile Crisis would probably keep him in power.

Comments?
 
Possibly, but I think Khrushchev's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was indeed really did him in in terms of leadership. My knowledge of the era isn't the greatest so I could be off by miles though, but I think the "Brezhnev Stagnation" may well have happened with anyone else in charge. Like I said, I could be totally wrong
 
Generally agree with OP. While Nikita Sergeyevich was regarded as hamfisted buffoon even in USSR, his policies were actually much more soundly based and promising than those of his successors. He knew that USSR could never keep both nuclear and conventional parity with West and not be broke next moment. That is economy saving POD no1, and that he had some appreciation for consumer goods industry and agricultural change is big economic POD no2.

At worst perestroyka is some years later, economic problems in late USSR days are far lesser, much less hard feelings between peoples of USSR, maybe some republics stay together.

Only under Brezhnev did USSR reach nuclear parity with NATO, and it cost them every single pennny they earned from oil exports during '70es crisis.
 
Interesting. My timeline (Democratic President Reagan)will probably lack a Cuban Missile Crisis.

So if Khrushchev hangs around for longer, what are his priorities? Work on the economy, consumer goods, and agricultural reform?

Forget about nuclear parity and work simply for a MAD deterrent?
 
Forget about nuclear parity and work simply for a MAD deterrent?

McNamara and Kennedy announcing 1000 ICBMs scared the shit out of Russians. Sure, they know they couldn't afford it but still... Compromise between best option and realism would be to say they got a MAD package that is numerous and redundant enough to act as a deterrent to USA. It will likely be close behind IRL numbers. What Khrushchev tried was to go for nuclear parity and deterrence and reduce huge amount of conventional forces USSR supported.
I'm trying to say that just USA arming as in OTL will force USSR down nearly same road. Still... maybe SALT precursors in '60es so we end up with thousands and not tens of thousands of warheads on each side by 1970.

In any Khrushchev timeline if you add Korolev staying alive longer you get Reds on the Moon by 1972. and continued space race.
 
Khrushchev believed the capitalist system would eventually undermine itself so all the WP has to do is relax and let it happen. He wanted to dramatically cut the Soviet conventional forces and rely on the nuclear deterrent. He was a big fan of ICBMs and missile submarines. He also wanted to improve relations with the West to reduce his defense needs. Generally he was a lot like Ike in his thinking toward the industrial military complex.
 
Forget about nuclear parity and work simply for a MAD deterrent?

Nuclear parity in itself will not be that expensive, it's the conventional forces which eat up the budget without providing much return. A true Khruschevite solution might be a radical overhaul of Soviet general purpose forces:

- Reduce PVO (air defense force) radically: it won't be able to stop ballistic missiles, so what's the use? Take a note from British 1957 White Paper.
- Reduce Ground Forces and reform them: A march to Biscay isn't feasible, but Ground Forces will still be needed for Hungary-style interventions, limited conflicts etc. About ca. 40 divisions will be enough, but these will enjoy the best gear available. (Say, 15 for strategic reserve, 10 in Eastern Germany, 10 in Chinese Border, 5 for Southern Border)
- Reform the Navy: Navy can't hunt down Polaris missiles in significant numbers, so the traditional mission of coastal defense is a moot point. Build up fewer, but larger units to make a force which can be used to support various Third World movements.
- Cut ADD, save for a few bombers. These won't be needed. On the other hand, as historically, even a few bombers will result in a massive American investment to air defense and might be useful for limited conflict. (as historically in Afghanistan)
- Build up paratrooper and special forces: These forces will be extremely useful for limited conflict and brotherly interventions, they have technologies which are ahead of similar Western forces and training on par with Western forces.
- Cut satellite militaries to parade-ground bare bones: These won't be useful for internal order-keeping or the March for Biscay; but cutting these down will make interventions against them easier, reduce the need for forces in Eastern Germany and free up resources for consumer production keeping the population happier.
 
Yeah, I think this would have been a great thing, and possibly would have saved the Union. He probably would have further liberalised without wrecking the political system and maybe further increased the standard of living. Who knows how he would have handled Czechoslocvakia, then agian who knows how differently Dubceck would have acted had he been dealing with a reformer rather than Brezhnev...
 
Interesting. My timeline (Democratic President Reagan)will probably lack a Cuban Missile Crisis.

So if Khrushchev hangs around for longer, what are his priorities? Work on the economy, consumer goods, and agricultural reform?

Forget about nuclear parity and work simply for a MAD deterrent?


he will not made the mess Leonid Brezhnev made
i mean socio-economic slowdown and corruption under Leonid Brezhnev

the Sovjet Space program will dominated by Vladimir Chelomei
Khrushchev son work at Vladimir Chelomei Buro OKB-52
and Chelomei was adviser on Rocket question for Khrushchev
Chelomei lost alot of his politic power and influential after Khrushchev Ouster

so how look space race dominated by Vladimir Chelomei and not Sergey Korolyov ?

attachment.php

no Soyuz but Merkur spacecraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkur_(spacecraft)
launch on Proton rocket around the moon http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk1.htm
UR-700 Heavy lift rocket for Lunar mssion LK-700 http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk700.htm
the UR-700 is build from Proton rockets parts.

Merkur will form MOL like space station Almaz (This became under Brezhnev Salyut/Soyuz)
resuply by TKS space kraft
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/almazops.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tks.htm

on Nuclear Armament Khrushchev had this Idea for 100MT ICBMs
(the Zar Bomb was a prototype for that Nuke and ICBM UR-500 became Proton Rocket.)
he wandet a handfull of those monster ICBM in underground Silos
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/proton.htm
 
Before someone posts that it was Kruschev behind intervention in Hungary. He was practically forced for a show of force. England and France were at war with then "Soviet friendly" Egypt and it looked like Egypt would lose. Soviet power was questioned everywhere, in Asia in South America... So when disliked (they were Nazi pupets in WWII remember, and its just 11 years beofre this) Hungarians tried to raise their voice, they got a really really hard response.
 
If the modern era has taught us anything, it's that "change" can mean anything and everything :D

Also, would a respectible PoD be the inclusion of crop rotation in the Virgin Lands Campaign? You know, so they'd have topsoil after a year?
 
In 1954, as the planning of the Virgin Lands Campaign begins, Khrushchev realizes that there is neither enough fertilizers nor good enough infrastructure for a high-yield, one-crop agricultural model in Central Asia. Instead the Soviet Union will have to rely on crop-rotation, for now. That way top-soil won't be exhausted in a matter of years, and the Virgin Lands won't turn out to be an old maid.

The first harvest on the Virgin Lands, in 1956, was a stunning success. Though, for example, the wheat-production didn't reach as high as it would have if wheat hade been the only crop as some had suggested, it nonetheless increased rapidly, as did other crops. The lines in Soviet stores suddenly started to disappear, the shelves were filled, and the prestige of Khrushchev increased. Over thext few years, lacks of silos, machine-parts, transportation and other initial problems were to a large degree taken-cared of. The cultivation of the desert and the victory of Labour over Nature, became a major theme in Soviet propaganda.

With his victory over the Stalinist opposition in 1956 Khrushchev star was on the rise, and the word Khrushchevism started to enter language. Khrushchev had woved that Communism would be established by 1980. The plan was simple: by achieving missile parity with the West detente could be achieved, realeasing large parts (military industrial complex, heavy industry) of the Soviet economy for productive purposes. This would together with the planned-economy (which, he believed, had showed it's superiority in the 30', 40's and 50's) for the Socialist camp to catch up and by-pass the West economically and socially. Simultaneously there would be a political and cultural thaw, eventually leading to full Communist slef-management around 1980, as the succes of the system made party-rule and the repressive apparatus unneccesary. This in turn would lead to World Revolution as the masses of the World realized the superiority of Socialism. With Socialism implemented world-wide armed forces and borders would eventually disappear, ushering in International Communism that would in due time dispose of money and (thereby) wage-differences. World war would prove to be unneccesary, as would the cruel machinations of Stalin.
 
Last edited:
Top