Russian Federation instead of USSR

Let's assume that Stalin's Autonomizatstya Plan was adopted. All Soviet republics were included in the Russian Federation (that is, Ukraine, Belarus, etc., have the status of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the RSFSR). Further history goes like in OTL. For 1991, the Russian SFSR has the borders of the USSR in 1945.
Could this administrative structure affect the fall of communism? Could the Stalinist terror against national minorities be on a larger scale? Can Russia even break up?(USSR scenario would never happened, because ASSRs cant leave Russian Federation). I also think that the career of Khrushchev and Yeltsin would be completely different,so Vladimir Putin would hardly have come to power.
You could also see a separate Adjaria and Karalkapistan, single Abkhazia and Osetia(they not in Georgia and Uzbekustan). No Karabkh and Nakhichevan Autonomous Oblasts.
UeTK2X9Emt4.jpg
 
There's still going to be unrest and unhappiness from all those people forcibly absorbed into Russia - especially the Baltics.
 
I don't think this structure would hold until 1991. If we assume that the timeline doesn't change until 1944, Stalin will still try to get more UN membership seats and thus will give the union republics autonomy and make them de jure independent (which he did IOTL by formally allowing them to have a foreign ministry and an own defense ministry). Also he wouldn't annex the baltic republics but style them as puppet regimes.
 
Last edited:
There's still going to be unrest and unhappiness from all those people forcibly absorbed into Russia - especially the Baltics.

in OTL Russia in 1991, separatism was only in Tatarstan and Chechnya. Thanks to the new federal treaty, the Russian Federation has maintained its integrity. I think in this timeline the sources of separatism are the Caucasus, Moldova, the Baltic states and the western part of Ukraine
 
in OTL Russia in 1991, separatism was only in Tatarstan and Chechnya. Thanks to the new federal treaty, the Russian Federation has maintained its integrity. I think in this timeline the sources of separatism are the Caucasus, Moldova, the Baltic states and the western part of Ukraine
Moldova?
 
I don't think this structure would hold until 1991. If we assume that the timeline doesn't change until 1944, Stalin will still try to get more UN membership seats and thus will give the union republics autonomy and make them de jure independent (which he did IOTL by formally allowing them to have a foreign ministry and an own defense ministry). Also he wouldn't annex the baltic republics but style them as puppet regimes.
Nope. Stalin wanted to restore borders of former Russian Empire. He denied idea of world revolution(original bolshevik idea).
The Stalinist USSR was essentially a communist version of the Russian Empire with formally existing republics. The whole center was located in the Russian SFSR, so Russia did not even have its own communist party. "Korenizatsyia" process was replaced with russification.(+Cirillization of non-slavic alphabets). Due to this, Baltic States would were reintegrated even into Soviet Russia as autonomous SSRs.
 
Thanks to the new federal treaty, the Russian Federation has maintained its integrity.

Tatarstan and Chechnya didn't even want to sign the 1992 federation treaty to begin with, so I doubt it's only thanks to this piece of paper that the Russian Federation retained its integrity. I'm not an expert, but Russian (military) superiority, especially in the case of Chechnya, seem to have been much more important.
 
The Stalinist USSR was essentially a communist version of the Russian Empire with formally existing republics. The whole center was located in the Russian SFSR, so Russia did not even have its own communist party. "Korenizatsyia" process was replaced with russification.(+Cirillization of non-slavic alphabets). Due to this, Baltic States would were reintegrated even into Soviet Russia as autonomous SSRs.
According to this logic, Poland and Finland would be reintegrated as well.
 
I don't think this structure would hold until 1991. If we assume that the timeline doesn't change until 1944, Stalin will still try to get more UN membership seats and thus will give the union republics autonomy and make them de jure independent (which he did IOTL by formally allowing them to have a foreign ministry and an own defense ministry). Also he wouldn't annex the baltic republics but style them as puppet regimes.

Well I think part of what allowed Stalin the idea of having the SSRs become UN members was the fact that some non-sovereign entities were being given UN membership (India and the Philippines) and that according to the USSR constitution, the various SSRs were technically able to secede if they wanted and were in some respects (theoretically only of course) as autonomous or moreso than those territories. Originally Stalin apparently wanted representation for all 16 SSRs at the time, Truman countered with a suggestion for representation for all 48 US states at the time and in the end it was agreed on representation for 2 SSRs, Belorussia and Ukraine. But the settlement on 2 seems not to be coincidence as it would balance out the 2 non-sovereign (but highly autonomous) territories of the US and UK at the time (Philippines and India).

If Stalin had been able to manouevre things so that the Belorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR and the Caucasus republics had been incorporated into the RSFSR as autonomous republics and there was no provision for secession from the RSFSR (I suspect the OP may be mistaken here though, but I'm not sure) then down the line if everything else remained most the same somehow I suspect that rather than trying to get UN membership for the Belorussian ASSR and Ukrainian ASSR, instead Stalin would more strongly push against Indian and Filipino full membership and settle rather for some special status to reflect that they were transitioning to independence. So maybe they would be called Special Members and would be able to debate in the General Assembly but not to vote until such time as they became sovereign states (at which point their Special Membership would end and they would become regular Members but still be regarded as Founding Members). Definitely agreed on the Baltic States - he wouldn't annex them in that scenario but would make them into puppet states (which actually also gives him three extra votes in the General Assembly anyway, so he might even consent to India and the Philippines becoming regular founding members as happened in OTL).

However, I would like to read more about the Autonomizatstya Plan that @Bukabuck referred to. Bukabuck, is there any links where we can read on this? As I was under the impression that even if Stalin aimed for the other SSRs to have been incorporated fully into the RSFSR the pressures of the various SSR governments meant that the compromise was a federation with the RSFSR instead of joining the RSFSR directly.
 
Well I think part of what allowed Stalin the idea of having the SSRs become UN members was the fact that some non-sovereign entities were being given UN membership (India and the Philippines) and that according to the USSR constitution, the various SSRs were technically able to secede if they wanted and were in some respects (theoretically only of course) as autonomous or moreso than those territories. Originally Stalin apparently wanted representation for all 16 SSRs at the time, Truman countered with a suggestion for representation for all 48 US states at the time and in the end it was agreed on representation for 2 SSRs, Belorussia and Ukraine. But the settlement on 2 seems not to be coincidence as it would balance out the 2 non-sovereign (but highly autonomous) territories of the US and UK at the time (Philippines and India).

If Stalin had been able to manouevre things so that the Belorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR and the Caucasus republics had been incorporated into the RSFSR as autonomous republics and there was no provision for secession from the RSFSR (I suspect the OP may be mistaken here though, but I'm not sure) then down the line if everything else remained most the same somehow I suspect that rather than trying to get UN membership for the Belorussian ASSR and Ukrainian ASSR, instead Stalin would more strongly push against Indian and Filipino full membership and settle rather for some special status to reflect that they were transitioning to independence. So maybe they would be called Special Members and would be able to debate in the General Assembly but not to vote until such time as they became sovereign states (at which point their Special Membership would end and they would become regular Members but still be regarded as Founding Members). Definitely agreed on the Baltic States - he wouldn't annex them in that scenario but would make them into puppet states (which actually also gives him three extra votes in the General Assembly anyway, so he might even consent to India and the Philippines becoming regular founding members as happened in OTL).

However, I would like to read more about the Autonomizatstya Plan that @Bukabuck referred to. Bukabuck, is there any links where we can read on this? As I was under the impression that even if Stalin aimed for the other SSRs to have been incorporated fully into the RSFSR the pressures of the various SSR governments meant that the compromise was a federation with the RSFSR instead of joining the RSFSR directly.
Also, a lot of people in modern Russia think, that USSR was planted bomb on Russian integrity and sooner or later had to fall apart.
 
Nope. Stalin wanted to restore borders of former Russian Empire. He denied idea of world revolution(original bolshevik idea).

The first part is correct, the second part is not at all correct. Stalin went to his deathbed thinking that the world revolution would happen in due time. (Probably after the UK-US WW3 he was expecting instead of the Cold War.) Stalin's "Socialism in one country" was not a repudiation of the idea of world revolution, it was Stalin's specific ideas about what the self-destruction of capitalism would look like and how the Soviet Union should act in order to survive and hasten the day when world wars and capitalism (which to Stalin's way of thinking was simply outcome and root cause) were history.

Could this administrative structure affect the fall of communism?

Absolutely. It is possible that the Baltic states might get their independence, but the other SSRs mainly broke away because the only thing binding them to Russia was the Communist Party itself - once Gorbachev destroyed the Party's monopoly on power, the leaders of the SSRs had more power than him.

A more unitary government structure also leaves Yeltsin and other ambitious sorts less in the way of alternate paths to the top. It's pretty unlikely with such an early PoD Gorbachev and Yeltsin themselves would get to where they were in OTL - if they are even born - but if we handwave all the same players, it's quite possible that not only does the state survive the fall of Communism, the Communist Party itself could survive the fall of Communism, and end up being a large party in the newly multi-party system.

That said, the fall of Communism is so contingent on Gorbachev (and to a lesser extent other players like Yeltsin) that the odds are that if a fall happened it would happen in a very different way.

fasquardon
 
There are russian minorities in the Baltics .
A Uber Russia will play the demography card , and plant even stronger russian minoraties in the " autonomous" republics to keep independence movements in check.
And mass deportations , famines and general promotion of russian language to allow for better conditions
You speak russian and are a good party member and you can have a bright future
The opposite and we have a ticket to a gulag for you
 
Top