Saving Khrushchev from Being Ousted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you agree that if:

1.) Brezhnev dies in a plane crash in 1961 or dies from a fatal combination of booze and drugs;
2.) Mikhail Suslov and Arvids Pelsedying from a heart attack during a hot day in June 1963 (I really think Suslov was the real power behind everything from 1957 to 1982. See "The Soviet Machiavelli" and other sources
3.) Andrei Kirilenko dying in a car crash in 1963;
4.) Rodion Malinovsky demand for an autonomous and professional military establishment as well as his concept of balanced development of the armed forces gets accepted in 1963;
5.) Khrushchev publicly announces the withdrawal of missile from Turkey (basically not announcing it was a big mistake; [In the eyes of the Soviet People]Why withdraw from Cuba for almost nothing?])
6.) Paying the other hardliners and promising political favors albeit under reform so that he could have allies;
7.) A lot of investment was put into consumer products instead of heavy industry and the military during the 60s;
8.) The Virgin Lands Campaign had been fixed;
9.) Mao Zedong and Lin Biao dies in 1958 and gets replaced by Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, thus no Sino-Soviet Split; and
10.) Him starting a space program right after Kennedy's May Speech and Korolev living until 1977, thus Soviets go the moon in 1968

Khrushchev would not have been ousted in 1964?


I really apologize for the so many deaths.
 
Khrushchev was thrown out because he alienated the Soviet elites, and took risks that didn't pay off and made him and the nation look foolish. Killing off people doesn't change that—hell, it might lead to an earlier overthrow, since people are going to think he's becoming another Stalin with all those deaths.
 
Well here he declares the removal of missiles from Turkey by NATO, so it's a gamble, but a good one.

Well for Pelse's and Suslov's heart attacks, they're natural heart attacks.

For the deaths: I think if all of them are accepted as "normal" deaths or are caused by foreign powers (e.g. in this thread, then it's ok with the top Soviet brass.

Well here I fixed many of the problem during his reign, only the Cuban Missile Crisis comes to pass, but he thinks and announces the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey by NATO. Also, if Lorenzo Sumulong does not make that speech that infuriated Khrushchev (the shoe-banging incident was an embarassing one; I am planning to remove that in my TL), no shoe. So what does everyone think?
 
Fairly sure Kennedy wanted it to be secret that he'd withdrawn missiles from Turkey so unsure whether Khrushchev would breach that agreement by announcing the withdrawal
 
in SpaceGeek TL "2001: A Space time Odyssey" that happens

POD one:
The R-16 test flight goes well after October 7th, 1960, what please Marshall Nedeplin
in 1962 there no need to install Medium range Ballistic missile in Cuba, the R-16 can attack the USA

POD two Leonid Brezhnev. died as his aircraft is shot down by accident in French-Algerian airspace, on February 9, 1961.
a OTL event what almost happen lucky that french pilot miss the airplane

with dead of Brezhnev and successful R-16 ICBM, and no political gamble about Cuba, has Khrushchev real chance to stay in power
 
I think the amendments you suggest would definitely keep Khrushchev in power but it'd be for only a few more years, the guy really was his own worst enemy, made too many gambles and uncalculated risks without thinking of consequences
 
Fairly sure Kennedy wanted it to be secret that he'd withdrawn missiles from Turkey so unsure whether Khrushchev would breach that agreement by announcing the withdrawal

In which case the US breaks the agreement and starts shipping missiles to Turkey or somewhere else the Russians won't like. If Khrushchev breaks his agreement to keep the deal quiet the US will respond. World events were not solely driven by Soviet will.
 
1968, maybe he could have held to power.

I think he would have retired by 1968, heeding the advise of Kosygin and co. IOTL his death in 1971 was caused by depression from his ouster, so I think he would have lived until at most 1977.

How could Kennedy have shipped missiles to the place where it all started? I think Kennedy wouldn't have put the missile anymore. For one they got close to a nuclear war in Cuba, and number two, people would be protesting. Also, Japan's too pacificist, as well as Korea, but the Philippines, South Vietnam, Rich Burma, Western-oriented Laos, etc.... deterrent to the PRC; too far from the USSR.

Hey, you can't put missiles in Iran. That's another thing for a Cuban-like crisis. The US won't be doing those stunts as much as the Soviet Union doesn't want to do theirs as well. They're just substituting one place for the other, one crisis for another. The American public won't do it. And considering West Germany was scared to death from the Berlin Crisis, and another Crisis a year later, eh no. Norway? No. Iraq? Or Israel? Too far away.

So the only available places are: Norway (No), West Germany (No), Pakistan (No. They were also scared after the Cuba). Iran (No. Too close like Turkey. The Soviets would really have squealed this time). South Korea (No. They were content with just US troops in the area). Japan (No. Too pacifistic). Southeast Asia (No. Too far away).

So really, Kennedy can't put his missiles anywhere near the USSR after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Massive protests would rock the US.

Really impossible to keep him with a Cuban Missile Crisis, even if the Turkey missiles are announced by Khrushchev?

Really, just have it leaked, not deliberately announced by Khrushchev. Therefore, no impetus for Kennedy to go Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Last edited:
1968, maybe he could have held to power.

I think he would have retired by 1968, heeding the advise of Kosygin and co. IOTL his death in 1971 was caused by depression from his ouster, so I think he would have lived until at most 1977.

How could Kennedy have shipped missiles to the place where it all started? I think Kennedy wouldn't have put the missile anymore. For one they got close to a nuclear war in Cuba, and number two, people would be protesting. Also, Japan's too pacificist, as well as Korea, but the Philippines, South Vietnam, Rich Burma, Western-oriented Laos, etc.... deterrent to the PRC; too far from the USSR.

Hey, you can't put missiles in Iran. That's another thing for a Cuban-like crisis. The US won't be doing those stunts as much as the Soviet Union doesn't want to do theirs as well. They're just substituting one place for the other, one crisis for another. The American public won't do it. And considering West Germany was scared to death from the Berlin Crisis, and another Crisis a year later, eh no. Norway? No. Iraq? Or Israel? Too far away.

So the only available places are: Norway (No), West Germany (No), Pakistan (No. They were also scared after the Cuba). Iran (No. Too close like Turkey. The Soviets would really have squealed this time). South Korea (No. They were content with just US troops in the area). Japan (No. Too pacifistic). Southeast Asia (No. Too far away).

So really, Kennedy can't put his missiles anywhere near the USSR after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Massive protests would rock the US.

Really impossible to keep him with a Cuban Missile Crisis, even if the Turkey missiles are announced by Khrushchev?

Really, just have it leaked, not deliberately announced by Khrushchev. Therefore, no impetus for Kennedy to go Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 :eek: :eek: :eek:

The Soviets post Cuba were in a bind given they had lied about what weapons they had in Cuba and were still in Cuba in the hands of a rogue actor who had to be talked down from nuking the US. They are not going to start boasting about a US stepdown when they are working around the clock not to let their own incompetence cause WWIII regardless. Once things have settled however Khrushchev is already discredited.


Khrushchev failed. Virgin Lands? The USSR now needs to import from its enemies not to starve. Cuba? The USSR almost got wiped off the face of the earth and had to publically back down after they internally boasted how Kennedy would cave like a house of cards and the Jupiter Missiles by this point were secondary to US nuclear strategy (no warning instead of almost no warning) whilst Russia was back to one way suicide missions to hurt the US. It wasn't the resounding US victory it was portrayed as but the Soviets were in no position to brag about the farce and those in the know knew they had almost died for a trivial difference in the strategic picture.

Then there was the fact that the Americans already had thousands of nuclear weapons in Europe and could always add more to compensate.

Khrushchev was a gambler and one who lost both domestically and strategically.
 
In which case the US breaks the agreement and starts shipping missiles to Turkey or somewhere else the Russians won't like. If Khrushchev breaks his agreement to keep the deal quiet the US will respond. World events were not solely driven by Soviet will.

But I doubt either Khrushchev or Kennedy would be willing to spark another potential CMC with such blatant disregard for the other, hence why I find it hard to believe Khrushchev would violate the agreement with Kennedy
 
But I doubt either Khrushchev or Kennedy would be willing to spark another potential CMC with such blatant disregard for the other, hence why I find it hard to believe Khrushchev would violate the agreement with Kennedy

Agreed, Khrushchev wasn't a complete moron and what I said above was obvious. Hence he wouldn't actually do so which was my point. The best way to avoid the damage of the Cuban Missile Crisis is to simply not put missiles in Cuba.
 
Have him announce that the Soviet space program is purely scientific in nature. His obsession with space really irritated his admirals and generals. They thought that he was being bamboozled by the science geeks, which he sort of was. The R-7 would have been totally useless as a first strike weapon, and it came at the expense of brand new cruisers and destroyers being sent to the scrap yard, which the Soviet brass found to be especially galling.
 
Have him announce that the Soviet space program is purely scientific in nature. His obsession with space really irritated his admirals and generals. They thought that he was being bamboozled by the science geeks, which he sort of was. The R-7 would have been totally useless as a first strike weapon, and it came at the expense of brand new cruisers and destroyers being sent to the scrap yard, which the Soviet brass found to be especially galling.

What would the USSR do with more cruisers and destroyers? Provide the USN with more target practice in case of a war? The USSR had no surface navy to speak of and a naval arms race with the US was one it would lose every time.
 
What would the USSR do with more cruisers and destroyers? Provide the USN with more target practice in case of a war? The USSR had no surface navy to speak of and a naval arms race with the US was one it would lose every time.

True, but put yourself in the mindframe of a Soviet flag officer in the mid-late 1950s. Cruisers and destroyers are a known quantity and weapons that will actually work in a combat situation. Rockets, on the other hand, are fragile, complicated and prone to exploding. It may be worthwhile having rockets in the inventory or in may not. They are a total unknown. To be asked to sacrifice a known quantity for a completely new class of weapon system that is fraught with unknowns and significant teething problems would be very frustrating. Krushchev was nearly tossed out on his ass twice by his generals because of his perceived obsession with rockets.
 
Last edited:
Khrushchev essentially lost power because he was caught between his own desire for betterment (no nuclear war, better conditions for citizens) and his precarious political position from summer 1961 - 64 regarding his fuck ups on Berlin, Cuba, the economy/industry and the nuclear arms race. This combination proved to be his undoing as the hardliners were not fans of his betterment agenda (and indeed most of it had failed, especially economically and industrially) and he made too many missteps in foreign policy to survive.

The way to save him from ouster is to either have his reform programmes succeed through better management and/or have him be wiser on foreign policy issues like Cuba and Berlin, which is difficult considering he was a 'gambler' who misjudged the responses of Kennedy and Europe on these issues.

Essentially, you'll need to change Khrushchev's management skill at home and mentality in world affairs to avoid an ouster, as by late 1962 he was on the way out.
 
In fact, looking for a specific PoD, I'd argue that a crucial factor would be the August 1961 resuming of atmospheric nuclear testing by the Soviet Union. Khrushchev gave such an order to strength his position amongst the hardliners, capitalise upon victories in 1960-1961 in space, Cuba and the Berlin Wall, and undermine the US as he did not rate Kennedy's ability to respond to him.

However, Khrushchev miscalculated as Kennedy decided in response to two public defeats on foreign policy (Bay of Pigs in April and Vienna Summit in June) to get tough on the Russians in response, as he felt this was the only politically beneficial action open to him. As such, Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric, on Kennedy's orders, gave an October 1961 speech outlining how the US has resumed nuclear testing as well and outlining the sheer advantage the US had in terms of nuclear warheads (Just over 24,000 for the US to nearly 2,500 for the USSR) over the USSR by the end of 1961.

This revelation undermined Khrushchev as it a) led the hardliners to call into his strategy of "peaceful co-existence" as they argued such an existence could not happen with such a US nuclear advantage and b) embarrassed him as he had boasted about USSR military superiority which was then exposed to be a massive exaggeration. This loss of face spurred him to authorise the missiles going to Cuba, thus the CMC and a greater embarrassment as a result. Furthermore, whilst his desire for disarmament with Kennedy was noble in 1963, it only served to further undermine his political position.

If you're looking for a PoD to save Khrushchev, EcoBOOM, I'd say have him avoid reauthorising atmospheric nuclear testing in August 1961 as this sparked a chain of events that forced Kennedy to respond in a tough manner that then exposed USSR inferiority and had Khrushchev make major miscalculations that embarrassed him on the world stage and undermine his political position to the extent that he was deposed in 1964.
 
In fact, looking for a specific PoD, I'd argue that a crucial factor would be the August 1961 resuming of atmospheric nuclear testing by the Soviet Union. Khrushchev gave such an order to strength his position amongst the hardliners, capitalise upon victories in 1960-1961 in space, Cuba and the Berlin Wall, and undermine the US as he did not rate Kennedy's ability to respond to him.

However, Khrushchev miscalculated as Kennedy decided in response to two public defeats on foreign policy (Bay of Pigs in April and Vienna Summit in June) to get tough on the Russians in response, as he felt this was the only politically beneficial action open to him. As such, Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric, on Kennedy's orders, gave an October 1961 speech outlining how the US has resumed nuclear testing as well and outlining the sheer advantage the US had in terms of nuclear warheads (Just over 24,000 for the US to nearly 2,500 for the USSR) over the USSR by the end of 1961.

This revelation undermined Khrushchev as it a) led the hardliners to call into his strategy of "peaceful co-existence" as they argued such an existence could not happen with such a US nuclear advantage and b) embarrassed him as he had boasted about USSR military superiority which was then exposed to be a massive exaggeration. This loss of face spurred him to authorise the missiles going to Cuba, thus the CMC and a greater embarrassment as a result. Furthermore, whilst his desire for disarmament with Kennedy was noble in 1963, it only served to further undermine his political position.

If you're looking for a PoD to save Khrushchev, EcoBOOM, I'd say have him avoid reauthorising atmospheric nuclear testing in August 1961 as this sparked a chain of events that forced Kennedy to respond in a tough manner that then exposed USSR inferiority and had Khrushchev make major miscalculations that embarrassed him on the world stage and undermine his political position to the extent that he was deposed in 1964.

Well, again, the message that missiles had been removed from Turkey leaks (not deliberately announced). Kennedy has no plans anymore to initiate another CMC. Khrushchev assures Kennedy that he did not announce it; Maybe some security personnel gossips it ala the blowing of KKK's (Philippines) cover, gossip upon gossip, then it reaches the higher echelons of the government. The hardliners would still be shaken from the CMC, but they think that it was (sort-of) worth it because in the process, another threat to the USSR was destroyed, and that he was merely defending their own interests.

I read in the article "The Soviet Machiavelli" (Suslov) in which Suslov forced Khrushchev out of power, with just Brezhnev as a stooge. It wasn't Cuba that forced him out: it was Suslov's politicking that was the reason. He became the true leader of the hardliner faction. He tried to depose Khrushchev many times during 1953-64, with the final one being successful.

Here, no Sino-Soviet Split: The Split was a leverage of power for him, and later on he worsened the split, along with Mao. Mao initiated the split, while Suslov worsened it. He hated Mao.

Suslov hated the rehabilitation of former gulag prisoners, and more their disbandment.

He hated Detente. Khrushchev wanted Detente, until he was forced to do so after NATO put missiles in Turkey.

The hardliners were angered by Khrushchev's speech claiming socialism had been achieved. So if he does not make that statement here...

Also, he tried to rehabilitate Stalin, which fired back. So, him accidentally saying it during a Central Committee meeting during Khrushchev's time, and then his death in the early 1960s along with other featured hardliners... Khrushchev in power...

Suslov was the one who wielded real power. Had he died during that time, along with other hardliners, it would have caused the hardliners to fall into much disarray, similar to what happened during Gorbachev's time (Andropov, Chernenko), and in Onkel Willie's Year of the Three Secretaries (Brezhnev, Pelse, AND [not shouting] Suslov yet again). Coupled with a good handling of CMC, Khrushchev might have held on for a longer amount of time. He would still have retired by 1972.


Khrushchev essentially lost power because he was caught between his own desire for betterment (no nuclear war, better conditions for citizens) and his precarious political position from summer 1961 - 64 regarding his fuck ups on Berlin, Cuba, the economy/industry and the nuclear arms race. This combination proved to be his undoing as the hardliners were not fans of his betterment agenda (and indeed most of it had failed, especially economically and industrially) and he made too many missteps in foreign policy to survive.

The way to save him from ouster is to either have his reform programmes succeed through better management and/or have him be wiser on foreign policy issues like Cuba and Berlin, which is difficult considering he was a 'gambler' who misjudged the responses of Kennedy and Europe on these issues.

Essentially, you'll need to change Khrushchev's management skill at home and mentality in world affairs to avoid an ouster, as by late 1962 he was on the way out.

Yeah, his reform programs succeed.

Berlin's solved when Khrushchev just orders East Germany to build the Berlin Wall instead of cursing the West.

He gives emphasis on consumer products and paying the hardliners, and fixes Virgin Lands by crop rotation and listening to his experts. Also, materials and infrastructure for farming is amply given.

Possibly Doctor Zhivago is allowed to be published ITTL.

He does not see avant-garde paintings.

Decentralization of Economy, reducing burden on Gosplan, coupled with cybernetic economy = advanced economy.


Is it even possible to fix the Virgin Lands Campaign?

He fixes the Virgin Lands by crop rotation and listening to his experts. Also, materials and infrastructure for farming is amply given due to the success. Major propaganda coup for him.

True, but put yourself in the mindframe of a Soviet flag officer in the mid-late 1950s. Cruisers and destroyers are a known quantity and weapons that will actually work in a combat situation. Rockets, on the other hand, are fragile, complicated and prone to exploding. It may be worthwhile having rockets in the inventory or in may not. They are a total unknown. To be asked to sacrifice a known quantity for a completely new class of weapon system that is fraught with unknowns and significant teething problems would be very frustrating. Khrushchev was nearly tossed out on his ass twice by his generals because of his perceived obsession with rockets.

Answer: He does not fully focus on rockets: Quote Below:


He would instead invest scientifically on the Army, Air Force and Navy, to cancel any effects of reduced quantity. This in turn makes the Soviet Military Brass happy. And with the hardliners in disarray after the many deaths of the leaders, his solution comes to pass. The hardliners are sidelined.


What would the USSR do with more cruisers and destroyers? Provide the USN with more target practice in case of a war? The USSR had no surface navy to speak of and a naval arms race with the US was one it would lose every time.

Focusing on carriers, submarines, some destroyers, perhaps? Research, research, research.

Have him announce that the Soviet space program is purely scientific in nature. His obsession with space really irritated his admirals and generals. They thought that he was being bamboozled by the science geeks, which he sort of was. The R-7 would have been totally useless as a first strike weapon, and it came at the expense of brand new cruisers and destroyers being sent to the scrap yard, which the Soviet brass found to be especially galling.

Agree with you.


So basically my point is:

Khrushchev's reforms are very much successful. Only the Cuban Missile Crisis comes to pass, and even so, news of NATO missiles leaving Turkey are leaked (not announced by Khrushchev) and Khrushchev assures Kennedy he did not do it. Only a security personnel during the talks with Kennedy accidentally releasing it ala KKK in the Philippines or Zorilla's tongue slipping, accidentally telling the Hohenzollern candidate for the Spanish crown to the French Ambassador to Spain. In the event he does not persuade Kennedy, Kennedy won't create another crisis for there is a recent one.

Only the Cuban Missile Crisis comes to pass.

 


Focusing on carriers, submarines, some destroyers, perhaps? Research, research, research.

Which the US clearly will miss and/or ignore and do nothing to counter? :rolleyes: The USSR could only lose a naval arms race with the US which has more money, many more warm water ports, better technology and hot production lines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top