The Soviets opt for a single state solution

Tellus

Banned
Largely for propaganda reasons and to grant more legitimacy to the Internationale, the Soviets chose from the onset of the revolution to break down the former Russian Empire - which they sought as their initial territory - in a series of new states (SSRs) based largely on largely ethnic borders. Their actual autonomy was laughable, and all the Soviet Union was of course governed from Moscow from the early days to the last.

But the legal and theorical independence granted to all these new states in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the West, gave them all the authority they needed to successfully secede from the Soviet Union when it was crumbling.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Moscow would directly annex eastern Europe after WW2, of course, but that all SSRs would remain into a single country. The name Soviet Union could be retained (In a more "federal" sense), but of course "USSR" would never be used.

Since the Internationale per se never had much success beyond the reach of the Red Armies, I'm thinking it's entirely possible that the first major consequences of this POD would only be seen in the late 80s. As the Soviet satellites in Europe denounce their Warsaw Pact membership, Moscow would retain full legal and military rights over all historical Russia, including Central Asia, the Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, and assuming they were annexed outright instead of being admitted as SSRs, the Baltic States.

I'm wondering two things; do you agree with my asessment that this POD would likely only have major impacts after the collapse of the wall, and assuming it does, do you think Moscow would manage in the context of the 90s to continue to assert it's authority over all the country; or would they face multiple "Chechenyas" on a scale too great to be be able to retain control? Would the people of the various SSRs, if they had never enjoyed theorical independence, even consider the fall of communism as a good time to break centuries-long ties with Russia? Or would we see a Russian Federation today with the borders of June 21, 1941?
 

ninebucks

Banned
If the state is centralised for ideological reasons, then I don't really see what's stopping them from directly annexing (at least some of) Eastern Europe. That is the logical conclusion of communist internationalism.
 
Largely for propaganda reasons and to grant more legitimacy to the Internationale, the Soviets chose from the onset of the revolution to break down the former Russian Empire - which they sought as their initial territory - in a series of new states (SSRs) based largely on largely ethnic borders. Their actual autonomy was laughable, and all the Soviet Union was of course governed from Moscow from the early days to the last.

The formation of the SSRs stems from Lenin's original reading of Marx. Lenin saw nationalism as a historical entity born out of the evolution of capitalism. To him, the rise of nationalism and the calls for the breakup of bigger empires was one sign that capitalism and the imperialism it had birthed had reached a crisis point.

On the stage of history, therefore, one could see separatist nationalism as a development one could subvert to help bring about international socialist revolution. And that is what Lenin did: he constantly supported the rights of self-determination for minorities in the Russian Empire, the "prison-house of nationalities", to enlist the forces to join in the fight against tsarist rule. When these nationalities then joined the nascent Soviet state, willingly or not, they were given their own SSR: clearly this was, at first, a way showing the minorities that in comparison with the tsarist times, in the new brave Soviet world they would have rights and a say in political matters. Lenin, of course, envisioned that the working class would eventually do away with such silly subdivisions that would not befit the New Man, but for the mean time they had their purpose.

The formation of the SSRs was therefore a part of the basic script for creating a Soviet state. Now, if Lenin or someone else at the helm of the movement would be ready, from the start, to stomp on the rights of different nationalities and forcibly join them in what would be seen as a basically Russian state, the revolution and civil war could have well turned against them. All the separatist movements would have been against them, instead of broken to supportive and hostile elements like OTL. This could really spell trouble for the very creation of the Soviet Union.

Then again, if the SSRs are created at first, but disbanded in say the 30s, there would still be a sense of political unity amongs the smaller nationalities and assuming no huge population transfers take place, they will similarly try to break away after the Soviet Union collapses: as clear borders for national subdivisions have not been established, this could make for a more messy breakup ITTL.
 
I tried a similar thread a while ago, but it got side tracked.

Personally, I don't think it requires a big adjustment to communist ideology, to see the path of revolution being that as each region/country turns communist, it joins the single mega-communist state. Either nationalism is surpressed (like religion), or is 100% expressed within a socialist framework (perhaps still called "SSR") which is seen as more progressive than nationalism in a nation-state. So therefore, if the USSR conquers Eastern Europe, annexation is required by ideology. Likewise a communist revolution in country X, would by default lead to country X joining the USSR.

The problem with this scenario, is that it would be harder for the USSR to recruit local allies in Eastern Europe and the 3rd world. Why, for example, drive out the British/French/Dutch/Belgians/Portuguese/Spanish/etc. when by doing so, you're simply inviting in the Russians?

I think what might happen (assuming history is roughly the same until WW2)...

Soviets annex Mongolia (maybe interwar) Eastern Europe (post WW2).

If there's a communist revolution in China, the Chinese communists are perhaps not so keen on joining the USSR... maybe N.Korea does though (but note, no Korean War, since this way it'd be the USSR directly attacking S.Korea and the US)

In the 3rd world, local revolutionaries maybe do appeal to both USSR (integrationalist-communist bloc) or China (national-communist bloc) and try to play each other off each other.... but after their revolutions/decolonization, very few (if any) actually join the USSR.

If any African or Asian countries do join the USSR, especially non-contiguous ones, (a) they probably become a bloody mess (think 1980s Afghanistan but worse), and (b) they look terrible for the USSR's image

I also think the USSR would have trouble finding non-communist/pro-Soviet allies or friends, in the 3rd world (e.g. no Syria's for example)
 
Well, I could see there being *fewer* SSRs...

Ukraine and Belarussia being integral parts of Russia (being East Slavs and all...)

Perhaps one single Central Asian SSR? Or have them all as part of Russia too?

Maybe just have them as integral parts of Russia, with a status of a "recognised ethnicity", a bit like they have in the PRC? :confused:

Formaly independent states will be a bit trickier... the Caucases and Baltic States in particular.
 
Top