Unitary "Soviet Union"

With a PoD in 1939, how could the Soviet Union evolve into a unitary or highly centralized Federal State that survives into the present day in which the "nationalities" are considered outdated as a concept and Russian is the main language in most if not all the Federal Republics and the national languages are reduced in their use and status.
 

Old Airman

Banned
With a PoD in 1939, how could the Soviet Union evolve into a unitary or highly centralized Federal State that survives into the present day in which the "nationalities" are considered outdated as a concept and Russian is the main language in most if not all the Federal Republics and the national languages are reduced in their use and status.
Stalin almost did it, in a sense, in 1945-1950. Russians were officially declared "eldest brother" in Soviet ethnic family, schools for "non-constituent" nationalities (Jews, Bulgarians, Koreans, Germans) had been closed, "korenization" had been abandoned and declared "nationalistic abomination". So, few tweaks here and there, let him live extra 5 years, change constitution to eliminate republic's right to secede, and you have it. 3 decades of "unitarian" constitution would make idea of secession very foreign for majority of population (excluding, possible, permanently unhappy Balts). Mood in 1990 would be very similar to OTL 1990 Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, to name republics with big minority components but without legally declared rights to secede. "We're in it together and we must get through it together".
 
I dunno, Antique Aviator. Russia as "elder brother" is rather different from "no nationalities at all", and Stalin puffed Russian nationalism hard to help inspire the folks at home vs the Nazis: this sorta guarantees an "us vs. them" sentiment, not a "we're all in it together."

Stalin, at the same time, was following the Soviet view of nationality, in which local nationalisms were to be used as a vehicle for modernization and breaking down more local loyalties, such as the squashing of the original 191 "national groups" identified by Soviet ethnographers into 60 by the mid-1930s, or, equally, to prevent possible threatening coalitions, most importantly a possible unified central Asian "Turkish" or Muslim one.

The notion that all national identies needed to go _from the start_ (and some Soviets thinkers early on felt that the nation should be organized into rational economic units rather than national ones really wasn't on the table at the time - although it was generally felt that local nationalisms would eventually be absorbed into Soviet Mankind, a lot that was done simply excerbated national sentiments rather than eliminate them. Heck, the modern states of central Asia are essentially Soviet creations.

Bruce
 
The problem is that there were quite a few Republics with very few ethnic Russians, I can't recall them all off the top of my head, but Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia all spring to mind.
 
I think it would be a failure. First it would be fairly hard to make work, for much of Soviet history there were signs of nationalist unrest (consider the protests in Georgia in the 1960s) and it was only a mixture of concessions and brute force that kept it under control.

If it could be made to work, it would probably emphasise some of the worst features of Soviet government. For example you would have fewer local leaders and more people from the 'centre' running regions. Politically handy, but these outsiders have a poor understanding of local conditions. Imagine a hundred little Khrushchev's demanding their constituents really can grow maize anywhere;). This consolidation would create over-centralisation, and make reforms even harder to initiate.
 
With a PoD in 1939, how could the Soviet Union evolve into a unitary or highly centralized Federal State that survives into the present day in which the "nationalities" are considered outdated as a concept and Russian is the main language in most if not all the Federal Republics and the national languages are reduced in their use and status.
Genocide? I rather suspect this would involve the deliberate, active extermination of several 10s of millions of people, and even Stalin wasn't THAT crazy.
 
Genocide? I rather suspect this would involve the deliberate, active extermination of several 10s of millions of people, and even Stalin wasn't THAT crazy.

He's not that far away from describing the situation as it in fact was by the end of the Soviet Union. There are more Russophone fluents in Kazakhstan than fluent Kazakh-speakers.

If one takes a fairly lax view of the conditions (national feeling exists but is generally considered secondary to Soviet patriotism, local languages are healthy but you need Russian to get on in life, and a "centralised federal unitary state" (??:confused:?) just means the party still runs everything from Moscow), this ain't that hard.

1939, you say? We get all of Germany's absurd early luck. Norway is a disaster, the French state continues to fight from Algiers somehow and Libya is thus swallowed in an instant, the Italians have their teeth kicked in by Greece, etcetera.

From this, find some butterflies (coup in Germany, Soviets have time to prepare, whatever) and butterfly away the German invasion and its catastrophic consequences.

The demographic impact of this, combined with some fortunate post-Stalin leadership, and I see no reason why 2010 shouildn't dawn on an intact USSR where everyone has a pretty firm grasp of Russian and nationalist agitation is pretty minimal outside a few hotspots.
 
.... .... ....
1939, you say? We get all of Germany's absurd early luck. Norway is a disaster, the French state continues to fight from Algiers somehow and Libya is thus swallowed in an instant, the Italians have their teeth kicked in by Greece, etcetera.

From this, find some butterflies (coup in Germany, Soviets have time to prepare, whatever) and butterfly away the German invasion and its catastrophic consequences.

The demographic impact of this, combined with some fortunate post-Stalin leadership, and I see no reason why 2010 shouildn't dawn on an intact USSR where everyone has a pretty firm grasp of Russian and nationalist agitation is pretty minimal outside a few hotspots.
The absence of a German invasion during World War II just might have the consequences you describe, but it might also very well have the opposite effect: winning a war very often stabilizes a regime, and repelling invaders as evil as the Germans ruled by Hitler gave Stalin and the system he built at least some semblance of legitimacy. If this semblance of legitimacy is not there because there is no German invasion, the Soviet system might have collapsed even earlier than in OTL.
 
The absence of a German invasion during World War II just might have the consequences you describe, but it might also very well have the opposite effect: winning a war very often stabilizes a regime, and repelling invaders as evil as the Germans ruled by Hitler gave Stalin and the system he built at least some semblance of legitimacy. If this semblance of legitimacy is not there because there is no German invasion, the Soviet system might have collapsed even earlier than in OTL.
I doubt the system itself would have collapsed in toto at such an early date. For better or worse, the average person in the USSR considered himself or herself a good communist. But Stalin's inner circle would likely collapse. Stalin's purges in the years leading up to WWII are all indicative of a regime that is slowly collapsing.

So maybe a Soviet spring in the mid to late 40s, with Stalin and co getting booted out. Either way, the scenario described is unlikely to happen, as any Soviet Union that gave Stalin the boot is likely to be more federal rather than less.
 
Would it have been possible for Stalin to outright abolish the SSRs, and if so what would be the long term effects?
 
How on earth would they run anything after abolishing all SSRs? The republican leaders might be in a good position to resist such an action. If this did somehow happen, it would probably pan out to a long term effect of either:
a) Stalin gets thrown out and the old system is re-implemented.
b) The Stalinist/Leninist system becomes unworkable, and an as yet undetermined system is implemented instead. Stalin gets thrown out again.
 
Ukraine and Belarussia would probably be fairly esay to incorporate under Stalin; I don't know about the other ones. Even so, keeping even those two countries would leave "Russia" with 210 instead of 150 million if the USSR still collapses; no doubt Russia would be stronger.
 
How does anyone resist in the purge era?
How does Stalin make the purges happen without the regional party apparatus? While he could and did send people from the 'centre' to accelerate purges in the regions, for example the commission sent to Ukraine, most had to be conducted within the framework of the existing republic. Otherwise the job becomes unmanageable.

Further, the purges was successful because it built over time. A unitary system cannot be implemented in this way, there has to be a unitary start point.

By trying to cut off the regional apparatus, you leave it ready to be taken over by regional leaders who get the hose in this deal. In some of the more remote areas local party leadership already exercised considerable independence, Central Asia for example.

EDIT: Oh, something else I forgot, some of Stalin's greatest cronies represent minorities who get marginalised by a unitary system. You know, like Beria the Mingrelian? Will they be happy to see their people (or more specifically, their political base) get cast down?
 
Last edited:
Top