USSR under Malenkov?

What if Malenkov is able to win out against Khrushchev and become First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? What is the Soviet Union like under Malenkov? What are its relations with the West like?
 
The USSR continues it's stalinist policies and probably collapses by the seventies at best. Mao's China becomes the face of international communism.
 
Malenkov was a terrified nonentity in the Politburo. No way he'd oppose the Khruschev and Bulganin partnership.

He a figure of fun to the rest.
 
The USSR continues it's stalinist policies and probably collapses by the seventies at best. Mao's China becomes the face of international communism.

Uh huh, you do realize that High Stalinism had caused the 1953 membership Politburo to spend fifteen or so years pissing their pants in terror. And none even Molotov wanted to continue that sort of rule, each advocating some sort of liberalization?

Also to a surprising extent the economic polices of the ''hardliners'' were actually much more sensible & realistic than Khrushchev's. Particularly in dealing with agriculture.

As for a Soviet collapse in the 1970's pluh-lese. The OTL break-up of the U.S.S.R was unlikely enough. It's far more likely to stand than fall.
 
I've read that digniatries liked working with Malenkov then Khrushchev. Maybe you could make a TL about this at some point.
 
The OTL breakup of the Soviet Union wasn't unlikely; it was an economic disaster that was only propped up by spiking oil prices in the 70s, which funded another decade of Soviet mismanagement. Had oil not skyrocketed in price, the economic collapse probably would have occurred by 77/78 followed by political upheaval in the very early 80s.

What is surprising is that the disintegration of that superpower went occurred so peacefully.

Most of the thoughts above are heavily influenced by this book: Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000, Stephen Kotkin
 
The OTL breakup of the Soviet Union wasn't unlikely; it was an economic disaster that was only propped up by spiking oil prices in the 70s, which funded another decade of Soviet mismanagement. Had oil not skyrocketed in price, the economic collapse probably would have occurred by 77/78 followed by political upheaval in the very early 80s.

What is surprising is that the disintegration of that superpower went occurred so peacefully.

Most of the thoughts above are heavily influenced by this book: Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970-2000, Stephen Kotkin

Ah, it was in a book so it must be true.:rolleyes:

In fact the collapse of the the U.S.S.R was highly unlikely and required a very specific set circumstances & personalities in place. The economy was inefficient, but stable and living standards were growing. The major impact of a drop in oil-prices means a reduction on the terrifying amount of arms-spending in OTL.

Whatever the fate of the Bolshevik regime, it's ideological development and central-planning, The Union itself is likely to survive. After all it had survived far worse economic upheavals under less ideal circumstances than a very ill-defined ''drop in oil prices during the 70's''
 
Ah, it was in a book so it must be true.:rolleyes:

In fact the collapse of the the U.S.S.R was highly unlikely and required a very specific set circumstances & personalities in place. The economy was inefficient, but stable and living standards were growing. ...
Living standards has been rising in the 1960s and early 1970s, but the combination of a significantly lower GDP than the USA and the rising costs of the arms race with the west put an end to that. By the early 1980s, the living standard began to drop, items, that had to be imported for valuta, i.e. convertible western currencies, were either no longer available or at least not in the quantities as before, certain items like e.g. instant coffee, that used to be available before at least sometimes could only be purchased in special valuta shops.
 
Given that previous ''drops in living standards'' (still within living memory of much of the Soviet population) involved starving to death or getting shot. Forgive me if I wont get bowled over by the absence of instant coffee.

While some imported items were cut-back in the 1980's, there was no real hardship or economic rescission, just stagnation/slow-growth.

Anyway this is getting rather off-topic...
 
Ah, it was in a book so it must be true.:rolleyes:

In fact the collapse of the the U.S.S.R was highly unlikely and required a very specific set circumstances & personalities in place. The economy was inefficient, but stable and living standards were growing. The major impact of a drop in oil-prices means a reduction on the terrifying amount of arms-spending in OTL.

Whatever the fate of the Bolshevik regime, it's ideological development and central-planning, The Union itself is likely to survive. After all it had survived far worse economic upheavals under less ideal circumstances than a very ill-defined ''drop in oil prices during the 70's''

1. Nice straw man argument. I defy you to find where in my post I said "if it was written in a book it must be true."

2. I lend more weight to a thoroughly researched scholarly book written by the then Director of Russian Studies at Princeton who had also written prior books about the rise and fall of socialism in the USSR than a random gentleman (or lady) on the internet.

However this pissing match does tend to veer away from the original point of this thread.
 
Given that previous ''drops in living standards'' (still within living memory of much of the Soviet population) involved starving to death or getting shot. Forgive me if I wont get bowled over by the absence of instant coffee.

While some imported items were cut-back in the 1980's, there was no real hardship or economic rescission, just stagnation/slow-growth.

Anyway this is getting rather off-topic...

Slow growth in the early 1950s caused insurrections in East Germany and Poland, and a revolution in Hungary. It caused urban party organisations to question the entire growth structure priority to a political committee (the then name for the political bureau) level.

yours,
Sam R.
 
1. Nice straw man argument. I defy you to find where in my post I said "if it was written in a book it must be true."

2. I lend more weight to a thoroughly researched scholarly book written by the then Director of Russian Studies at Princeton who had also written prior books about the rise and fall of socialism in the USSR than a random gentleman (or lady) on the internet.

However this pissing match does tend to veer away from the original point of this thread.

For one thing his works were much more narrow in scope. Secondly the book you refer to is less than 300 pages long and while it indeed has some good insights and conclusions, the broad generalizations you and some reviewers pin onto it are extraimly simplistic and take scant account of the actual conditions within U.S.S.R or the desires of it's peoples. Most of whom wanted the Union under some form of socialist government to survive.


Slow growth in the early 1950s caused insurrections in East Germany and Poland, and a revolution in Hungary. It caused urban party organisations to question the entire growth structure priority to a political committee (the then name for the political bureau) level.

yours,
Sam R.

In the majority of the satellite states, the ruling regimes were utterly dependent on Soviet-backing to stay in power and the people knew the government directing policy was in Moscow not Warsaw or Berlin.

What is true of the satellite sates wasn't true of the U.S.S.R, where the overall level of unrest wasn't particularly great even in the late 1980's and the regime fell mostly due to internal power struggles at the highest level. Particularly between Gorbachev & Yeltsin, the former of course having no spine to speak of.


Malenkov was the public face for Lavrentiy Beria, like Kalinin was for Stalin initially.

On the main topic: Malenkov seems to be underrated here, after Beria he was by far the most vindictive & bloodthirsty member of the Politburo. While he might need Beria support initially, he wasn't a powerless drone on par with Kalinin, and Beria was certainly no Stalin.
 
Top