PP: Soviet Liberalization
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
Soviet natural resources would yield an increasing benefits as Europe’s dependence of Russian oil & gas grows. As for manpower the U.S.S.R’s population was growing steadily. Particularly in the under-developed Central Asian SSR’s.
Soviet diplomatic realtions were good enough with many top-tier economies to make investment possible assuming a profit can be made, and unlike China the Politburo hadnt been acting like lunatics for the better part of ten years. Also to call China an ally during the Cold War is an outright falsehood.
As for WW2 losses, the worst effects were post-war. Forty years later not so much, the Russian piopulation had almost doubled after all.
First off, you really don't understand the relationship between NATO or China, do you? China was a TACTICAL ally, a relationship the USSR never had. There's a reason why the saying, "Only Nixon can go to China," matters so much to this day, among other things. NATO frequently worked through China to force concessions out of the USSR, something important to remember.
For the population, you clearly know little about the Soviet Union's internal populace. Even though those losses were in WW2, they, to this day, are still causing demographic imbalances. This isn't even getting into that because of the inefficiencies of Soviet economics, it's literally impossible for them to have unemployment. Part of the reason liberalization failed was because they had no ability to enforce worker discipline with traditional means of firing. Simply put, even though Russia had a massive populace, its economics meant they had to employ every person they could. Perhaps modernization of Soviet industry would help, but this would require the West to be willing to invest in the Soviet economy, which isn't going to happen in time.
Actually, you'd be surprised. Soviet cuts are difficult, at best, because of having to garrison Europe, and being stuck in the Cold War. Perhaps they could lower the garrison, but that would require leaving the arms race, which itself would require detente, which wasn't going to happen until the USSR won to some extent against the West.
Which brings up a problem. Where are you going to find a reformer in the Soviet Union that actually is competent? I wouldn't trust the assumption that there's someone like Deng running around that just never got a chance in OTL.
The problem with this is that partially, Soviet economics unlike Chinese economics actually worked on some level. Hence, liberalization is both harder to justify, and to some extent, harder to do, because the previous economy actually works, after a fashion. Every reformer has to justify doing reforms, and have a higher potential for screwing up because any attempt to reform has to be done piecemeal, for previous reasons.
In many ways the U.S.S.R was much better placed than China, yet you make the rise of the latter sound almost inevitable, while it's all doom & gloom for the Soviets. Remember different events, policies & leaders produce different results.
Think what China would've turned into under the rule of the Gang of Four.
[/QUOTE]
While it's true that China's rise wasn't inevitable, it had easier starting conditions that many people don't take into account, including you. The Soviet Union's population problems can't be underestimated, ones that China didn't have. Additionally, the Soviet Union has a worse diplomatic relationship because it has been a pariah for even longer than China. It has to achieve detente first, than liberalize, not the other way around.
Except I've already answered to you what occurred with China, something that didn't occur similarly with the USSR.
China was allowed to trade with countries like the US because of a mix of circumstances occurring that won't for the USSR if it still survives. The former has the whole end of history thing occurring, and it has, once again, dirt cheap labor. The Soviet Union doesn't have dirt cheap labor, and natural resources aren't a simple substitute. Both make money and encourage investment, but in very different ways.
For the diplomatic relations, let me ask you this. Did China occupy countries right next door to countries in Western Europe? That is why the Soviet Union is forced into pariah status, and going into an arms race it can not win.
For internal liberalization, see other posts for why it's forced to do it piecemeal.
China was allowed to trade with countries like the US because of a mix of circumstances occurring that won't for the USSR if it still survives. The former has the whole end of history thing occurring, and it has, once again, dirt cheap labor. The Soviet Union doesn't have dirt cheap labor, and natural resources aren't a simple substitute. Both make money and encourage investment, but in very different ways.
For the diplomatic relations, let me ask you this. Did China occupy countries right next door to countries in Western Europe? That is why the Soviet Union is forced into pariah status, and going into an arms race it can not win.
For internal liberalization, see other posts for why it's forced to do it piecemeal.
The thing is that the Soviet Union, though a lot of people did not like it, was not actually going to attack anyone the way Nazi Germany did. China by contrast directly fought and even prolonged a war (Korea) against not just the US but like 15 of its allies. Furthermore, China really was about the same as present-day North Korea in terms of craziness from around 1955 to 1976, and that didn't prevent reconciliation with the West after the right leader took the throne.
By contrast, the USSR was simply seen as a rival nation. With a more successful chain of events accompanying Detente, the superpowers could easily see no no further need for such heated rivalry and begin to do trade with each other. the USSR certainly had things the West would be willing to buy. I could see more Siberian oil being developed to sell on the cheap to Japan or something.
Now that I think of it, Japan could be a good gateway to Western markets. Say the Japanese strike a deal with the Soviets to buy their oil in exchange for money and, I don't know, better computers or something, and that this happens during detente. The Soviets are able to see from this fortunate event that trade is better than building armies and having them sit on the border, and since detente is still valid, they decide to make economic overtures to other Western-aligned nations. Some of their attempts are rejected, but some work and after a decade the USSR is on its way to being integrated into the global economy. Then have China go the way it does in Drew's Fear, Loathing, and Gumbo TL, and the PRC becomes the new pariah.
I don't see what is so hard about this.
By contrast, the USSR was simply seen as a rival nation. With a more successful chain of events accompanying Detente, the superpowers could easily see no no further need for such heated rivalry and begin to do trade with each other. the USSR certainly had things the West would be willing to buy. I could see more Siberian oil being developed to sell on the cheap to Japan or something.
Now that I think of it, Japan could be a good gateway to Western markets. Say the Japanese strike a deal with the Soviets to buy their oil in exchange for money and, I don't know, better computers or something, and that this happens during detente. The Soviets are able to see from this fortunate event that trade is better than building armies and having them sit on the border, and since detente is still valid, they decide to make economic overtures to other Western-aligned nations. Some of their attempts are rejected, but some work and after a decade the USSR is on its way to being integrated into the global economy. Then have China go the way it does in Drew's Fear, Loathing, and Gumbo TL, and the PRC becomes the new pariah.
I don't see what is so hard about this.
Perhaps, although there's a problem here.
Namely, it seems like only ONE of the countries gets to be friendly with the West at any given time, and the other must be the pariah. Why do I state this?
It appears if the Soviet Union was to successfully liberalize, than China couldn't, and vice versa.
Namely, it seems like only ONE of the countries gets to be friendly with the West at any given time, and the other must be the pariah. Why do I state this?
It appears if the Soviet Union was to successfully liberalize, than China couldn't, and vice versa.
I would like to see the USSR move to a more decentralized but not a private economy in the 1970's. This is done gradually might help with overall moral and production but it might flop.
As for the United States
As for the United States
Well it's not actually like that, but one point I didn't mention was that if the USSR liberalizes in the mid-70s, it shows to the Chinese leadership that they really are revisionists, and as such anyone in China trying to do something similar will be criticized and purged for following the corrupt Soviet way.
The reason I state that is because of this.
If one of the countries liberalizes, it will probably cause the other to have its conservatives refuse to allow further reforms. Additionally, whoever liberalizes will probably become a tactical ally of NATO through which it will strike at the other.
By liberalize you mean reform, and the problem is that you have enemies in everyone who benefits from the old ways of doing things. With a totalitarian state, this is made worse because failed reformers end up in jail at best or dead.
China liberalized only because Deng Xiaoping was in the right place in the right time after Mao died, and played all his cards right. If Deng had already been dead, we won't see the reforms he instituted. If the Gang of Four triumph over Hua Guofeng in 1978, we won't see any reforms. If Hua Guofeng triumphed over Deng afterwards, we won't see most of the reforms. If for whatever reason, Deng played his hand less well, no reforms. If Mao didn't act crazy and initiate the Cultural Revoultion, the elites might not have been so sickened that they wouldn't want reforms and enter Soviet style stagnation.
The best time for the Soviets to reforms were either in the early 1920s when they had the NEP. The problem with that, is the Communists would be throwing in the towel way too early, and that Stalin was outmaneuvering everyone in gaining control of the party. The other time was right after WWII when many Soviet leaders desired good relations with the West, but here too the same dynamics applied and Stalin made sure the USSR would remain in his image. Stalin chewed out Molotov for bending too much knee to the US in the first year after the war. Maybe if Stalin had a heart attack in April 1945 and died.
The only other time might have been during the Khruschev Thaw, but by then the national policies Stalin had set were too entrenched to easily overcome. We would need to have a situation where the Soviets saw that their best interests were saved by liberalization - which means no Hungarian Revolt, no U2 incident, no ongoing flashpoints between the two Cold War powers. That is almost impossible as by then, too many other factors (Mao, Castro) existed who could provoke the Soviets into supporting them against the US in return for enhanced prestige. There's an opportunity, but only a slim one.
China liberalized only because Deng Xiaoping was in the right place in the right time after Mao died, and played all his cards right. If Deng had already been dead, we won't see the reforms he instituted. If the Gang of Four triumph over Hua Guofeng in 1978, we won't see any reforms. If Hua Guofeng triumphed over Deng afterwards, we won't see most of the reforms. If for whatever reason, Deng played his hand less well, no reforms. If Mao didn't act crazy and initiate the Cultural Revoultion, the elites might not have been so sickened that they wouldn't want reforms and enter Soviet style stagnation.
The best time for the Soviets to reforms were either in the early 1920s when they had the NEP. The problem with that, is the Communists would be throwing in the towel way too early, and that Stalin was outmaneuvering everyone in gaining control of the party. The other time was right after WWII when many Soviet leaders desired good relations with the West, but here too the same dynamics applied and Stalin made sure the USSR would remain in his image. Stalin chewed out Molotov for bending too much knee to the US in the first year after the war. Maybe if Stalin had a heart attack in April 1945 and died.
The only other time might have been during the Khruschev Thaw, but by then the national policies Stalin had set were too entrenched to easily overcome. We would need to have a situation where the Soviets saw that their best interests were saved by liberalization - which means no Hungarian Revolt, no U2 incident, no ongoing flashpoints between the two Cold War powers. That is almost impossible as by then, too many other factors (Mao, Castro) existed who could provoke the Soviets into supporting them against the US in return for enhanced prestige. There's an opportunity, but only a slim one.
This too, thanks Blackfox5 for adding.
With that in mind though, the reason I draw so much comparison to China is that it had special circumstances that aren't easy to re-create, seeing as how they were quite difficult in OTL as it is.
Hence, if the Soviet Union is going to liberalize, it will look nothing like China because it has a different political and economic situation. I really want to emphasize this because it's a huge part of why I made this thread. I'm sick and tired of people making the Soviet Union like China in liberalization threads of the former.
With that in mind though, the reason I draw so much comparison to China is that it had special circumstances that aren't easy to re-create, seeing as how they were quite difficult in OTL as it is.
Hence, if the Soviet Union is going to liberalize, it will look nothing like China because it has a different political and economic situation. I really want to emphasize this because it's a huge part of why I made this thread. I'm sick and tired of people making the Soviet Union like China in liberalization threads of the former.
Snake Featherston
Banned
The major problem the USSR has in liberalizing its political system is that practically speaking the Soviet Union functioned as a joint block of unaccountable cliques which had often no direct common interests, but no means to hold any one of these truly accountable. The USSR developed this as the ultimate evolution of the Stalinist mixture of bureaucracy and terror, and it's this factor which is also a major obstacle in post-WWII military reform.
The difference is that while China also had factional infighting, by the time Deng consolidated power he set out to neuter anyone who stood in his way. Hence, the public show trials of the Gang of Four, and the rehabilitation of anyone and everyone who was persecuted during the Cultural Revolution. It's also a big help that the Cultural Revolution had been an unmitigated disaster as opposed to the Soviet stagnation which still guaranteed security and a basic life to most Russians. Deng had become untouchable within the Party. By contrast, Russia had stagnated for too long and there was no appetite for a deep purge of hardliners.
True that, people really don't like remarkable figures in TLs. Say you put a guy in Russia like Deng, and people will throw a fit about how no one man could force through such drastic reforms.
RousseauX
Donor
This is exactly what happened OTL, after Khrushchev and before 1970s the USSR was in deep economical crisis which was only temporarily resolved by the jump in oil prices. The USSR was effectively a petro-state in the 1970s, and the economical problems returned once oil prices dropped in the 1980s.
The problem is that oil revenue simply made the Soviets complacent, and made them believe that no change is necessarily because hey things are going well right now. This is incidentally, the exact same thing which is happening in Russia today.