What Would've Been The Best Sequence of Leaders for the Soviet Union to Survive to Modern Day?

[WhiteDragon25]

We all know the general timeline of Soviet leaders from 1917 to 1991: first Lenin, then Stalin, after him comes Khrushchev, Brezhnev after that, Andropov and a couple others in quick succession who didn't live long enough to make an impact, and finally Gorbachev, who had the ignominious honor of seeing it all fall apart.

Suffice to say, the Soviets had some pretty back luck in regards to who they got as leaders: Lenin got hit with several strokes and near-assassination attempts that cut his life short, which lead to the power struggle in the 1920's that resulted in Stalin coming to power (the consequences of his tenure don't need more to be said, obviously); his successor Khrushchev was, eccentric to say the least, and his reforms were a mixed bag that may have ended up hurting the USSR in the long run; Brezhnev was a stodgy conservative who grew senile towards the end of his tenure, and it was under his watch that the Union truly began to stagnate; Andropov and a couple of others (that I can't remember their names) didn't even live long enough to make much of an impact, thanks to their old age by the time they took the wheel, and it was the very fact that the Politburo had basically become a club of elderly geriatrics that Gorbachev was even brought in as General Secretary in the first place (as he was the youngest of the group, being only in his mid-50's)... unfortunately for the Union, Gorbachev turned out to be a wet blanket whose reforms were terrible at fixing anything, and by then it was too late to save the Union anyways.

So the question here is: if you had the choice, who'd you pick as the best possible sequence of Soviet leaders in order to maximize the Soviet Union's chances of making it to 2020? Achieving World Revolution or Cold War Victory is not a requirement here, merely just surviving past 1991 intact (for the most part).

- Scenario 1: You start with Lenin in 1917, with all future Soviet leaders being of your choosing.
- Scenario 2: You start with Stalin in 1945, with all future Soviet leaders being of your choosing.

Bonus points for offing Yeltsin and Putin.

 

[SandroPertini98]

Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov "Lenin" 1917-1924
Lev Davidovic Bronstein "Trockij" 1924-1955
Nikita Sergeevich Chruscev 1955-1973
Nikolaj Victorovich Podgornyj 1973-1983
Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev 1983-...

 

[stevej713]

Suffice to say, the Soviets had some pretty back luck in regards to who they got as leaders

All countries have bad leaders. It's inevitable. In fact, I think bad leadership is pretty much the norm, which is what makes good leaders so extraordinary. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn't with the leadership per se, it was with the way the country was structured. A single-party state with no checks and balances, complete control over markets and industry, modern methods of surveillance and control, but with a supposedly liberal/humanitarian worldview is a recipe for disaster.

In other words, the whole Soviet experiment was an exercise in cognitive dissonance: proclaiming universal freedom and liberation while creating a totalitarian state and exercising extreme intolerance towards dissidents. The late Soviet Union's increasing dependence on oil revenue didn't help either. Thus, when the Soviet economy really began to hurt due to crashing oil prices and decades of mismanagement, there were really only two options: either the system flies apart or the military ruthlessly holds the country together.

 

[CHKeeley]

I. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1917 - 1932)
II. Yakov Sverdlov (1932 - 1944)
III. Alexei Rykov (1944 - 1950)
IV. Alexander Shelepin (1950 - 1964)
V. Alexei Kosygin (1964 - 1975)
VI. Yuri Andropov (1975 - 1983)
VII. Georgy Shakhnazarov (1983 - 1991)
VIII. Alexei Ryzhkov (1991 - 2003)
IX. Nina Andreyeva (2003 - 2012)
X. Ilya Yashin (2012 - 2020)

Very some of these are a bit of a shaky premise for sure (especially after 2003...) and I was doing a write up for it, but decided not to for the moment.

Essentially it follows the formula that Lenin survives longer and the Old Bolsheviks get another 8 years until Lenin kicks the bucket and so some factional strife present in 1924 is avoided. Moderate Bolshevik-Administrator types in the form of a surviving Sverdlov and then Rykov assume the Chairmanship of SovNarKom (A reformed Council of People's Commissars survives a legacy of Lenin rather than the organic shift of power to the Politburo that we say IOTL). Rykov is removed for demonstrating some weakness internationally and Shelepin largely fills the role of OTL Brezhnev (confrontational and conservative) without some of the heavier drawbacks like being a geriatric for a significant portion of the time. Kosygin and Andropov usher in a period of reform and anti-corruption to the Party-State from the 1960's to the early 1980's and from there Shakhnazarov broadens the level of "Party democracy" although veers into some impractical and irrational reform which the new Chairman Ryzhkov scales back (restoring the taxes of alcohol, increasing production of consumer goods, humanitarian aid and "Socialism with a Human Face" to some degree, etc.) After over a decade under Ryzhkov, the Soviet Union is in fairly good shape, although worries exist to the level of "political correctness" and the upholding of the legacy of Lenin. Nina Andreyeva, a Party member who launches scathing critiques of the decades of "dangerous reformism" becomes the figurehead of a conservative backlash and becomes the first Chairwoman of the Council of People's Commissars in Soviet history. Her 9 year tenure sees the Soviet Union reimplement a degree of older Leninism in terms of Party discipline internationally, relationships with social-democratic and so called revisionist states and movements, etc. She also oversees the construction of a Great Firewall and parallel systems to combat the newest mode of communication: the Internet. This parallel Soviet internet, ironically, proves to be her downfall as head of the USSR.. The young reformer Ilya Yashin utilizes the system to organize both a grassroots and inner Party opposition to the conservatives, and he is elevated to Chairman in 2012, a position he holds today as the USSR continues to be the global face for the international communist movement.

The USSR in 2020 in this scenario, having had a track list of at least decently competent leaders, is still essentially a one party state without too much in the way of private markets and is still pretty militarized, but is is a better place to live than in OTL. The legacy of the "Bolshevik bureaucrat" as Chairman rather than a strongman like Stalin cultivates a stronger civic culture in Party leadership and less innate hostility to inner-Party struggle. The system is liberalized to a degree, enjoys a more dynamic Party system, has a fairly decent consumer goods economy, and it's relationship with the West is middling (comparable to China 2020)..

Again, very implausible and many dead butterflies, but just something I devoted a few hours to.

 

[Aghasverov]

Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov "Lenin" 1917-1924
Lev Davidovic Bronstein "Trockij" 1924-1955
Nikita Sergeevich Chruscev 1955-1973
Nikolaj Victorovich Podgornyj 1973-1983
Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev 1983-...

Podgorny is a good choice. He's often overlooked in discussions similar to this one...

 

[Teutonic_Thrash]

I. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1917 - 1932)
II. Yakov Sverdlov (1932 - 1944)
III. Alexei Rykov (1944 - 1950)
IV. Alexander Shelepin (1950 - 1964)
V. Alexei Kosygin (1964 - 1975)
VI. Yuri Andropov (1975 - 1983)
VII. Georgy Shakhnazarov (1983 - 1991)
VIII. Alexei Ryzhkov (1991 - 2003)
IX. Nina Andreyeva (2003 - 2012)
X. Ilya Yashin (2012 - 2020)

Very some of these are a bit of a shaky premise for sure (especially after 2003...) and I was doing a write up for it, but decided not to for the moment.

Essentially it follows the formula that Lenin survives longer and the Old Bolsheviks get another 8 years until Lenin kicks the bucket and so some factional strife present in 1924 is avoided. Moderate Bolshevik-Administrator types in the form of a surviving Sverdlov and then Rykov assume the Chairmanship of SovNarKom (A reformed Council of People's Commissars survives a legacy of Lenin rather than the organic shift of power to the Politburo that we say IOTL). Rykov is removed for demonstrating some weakness internationally and Shelepin largely fills the role of OTL Brezhnev (confrontational and conservative) without some of the heavier drawbacks like being a geriatric for a significant portion of the time. Kosygin and Andropov usher in a period of reform and anti-corruption to the Party-State from the 1960's to the early 1980's and from there Shakhnazarov broadens the level of "Party democracy" although veers into some impractical and irrational reform which the new Chairman Ryzhkov scales back (restoring the taxes of alcohol, increasing production of consumer goods, humanitarian aid and "Socialism with a Human Face" to some degree, etc.) After over a decade under Ryzhkov, the Soviet Union is in fairly good shape, although worries exist to the level of "political correctness" and the upholding of the legacy of Lenin. Nina Andreyeva, a Party member who launches scathing critiques of the decades of "dangerous reformism" becomes the figurehead of a conservative backlash and becomes the first Chairwoman of the Council of People's Commissars in Soviet history. Her 9 year tenure sees the Soviet Union reimplement a degree of older Leninism in terms of Party discipline internationally, relationships with social-democratic and so called revisionist states and movements, etc. She also oversees the construction of a Great Firewall and parallel systems to combat the newest mode of communication: the Internet. This parallel Soviet internet, ironically, proves to be her downfall as head of the USSR.. The young reformer Ilya Yashin utilizes the system to organize both a grassroots and inner Party opposition to the conservatives, and he is elevated to Chairman in 2012, a position he holds today as the USSR continues to be the global face for the international communist movement.

The USSR in 2020 in this scenario, having had a track list of at least decently competent leaders, is still essentially a one party state without too much in the way of private markets and is still pretty militarized, but is is a better place to live than in OTL. The legacy of the "Bolshevik bureaucrat" as Chairman rather than a strongman like Stalin cultivates a stronger civic culture in Party leadership and less innate hostility to inner-Party struggle. The system is liberalized to a degree, enjoys a more dynamic Party system, has a fairly decent consumer goods economy, and it's relationship with the West is middling (comparable to China 2020)..

Again, very implausible and many dead butterflies, but just something I devoted a few hours to.

You've got a like for Sverdlov alone.
My old communist/Spartakus-based timeline had a similar outcome for Rykov, but as Chairman of the Comintern.

 

[Lalli]

Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov "Lenin" 1917-1924
Lev Davidovic Bronstein "Trockij" 1924-1955
Nikita Sergeevich Chruscev 1955-1973
Nikolaj Victorovich Podgornyj 1973-1983
Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev 1983-...

Not sure if Trotsky would had been best possible Lenin's successor. He was such guy who would had launched WW2 against whole Europe and probably USSR would had been destroyed.

 

[Cudymcar]

He was such guy who would had launched WW2 against whole Europe

A figment of Stalinist propaganda.

 

[SandroPertini98]

Not sure if Trotsky would had been best possible Lenin's successor. He was such guy who would had launched WW2 against whole Europe and probably USSR would had been destroyed.

Actually the imagine of Trockij like a warmongering Bolschevik Roberspierre is greatly exaggerated: surely he was against the Stalinist "Socialist in One Country" in favor of a more internationalist approach, of course tending to support his comrades around the world, but he was also a militar and political leader and in such role he was very pragmatic. For example he understood Red Army couldn't face the Imperial German Army and approved the Brest-Lytovsk Armistice. At the same time he called for avoid the Polish-Soviet War, before being overruled by Lenin. The entire Western vision of Soviet leaders positions is often distorted by years and years of propaganda based on assumption that more one leader is "communist" more he is dangerous (Trockij, more communist than Stalin, is a clear example. An other one is Bucharin, often considered the less communist soviet leader due his moderate position on economic affairs, but that was against and continued to be against the Brest-Lytovsk Agreement and in favor of war continuation to spread the revolution in Central Europe).

 

[Sarthak]

Some of Trotsky's economic ideas were worse than Stalin's. The man is not going to be a pragmatic economist. He could see the problems but many of his solutions for them were horrendous. He supported the collectivisation and wanted it on a more grander scale of thats possible, he is not going to be your economic guy to build up the Soviet economy.

 

[Padric1938]

Vladimir Lenin 1917-1924
Grigory Zinoviev 1924-1961
Alexei Kosygin 1961-1980
Andrei Gromyko 1980-1989
Nikolai Ryzhkov 1989-2010
Alexander Rutskoy 2010-

I'm not very well versed with Late soviet politics but this seems like a possible timeline.

 

[Vabasion]

Lenin 1924
Stalin 1924-1953
Kaganovich 1953-1990
Nina Andreeva 1990-2020
And Soviets would probably be picking a heir right now since she died on July 20th this year.

 

[Padric1938]

Lenin 1924
Stalin 1924-1953
Kaganovich 1953-1990
Nina Andreeva 1990-2020
And Soviets would probably be picking a heir right now since she died on July 20th this year.

I don't see how Andreeva and Kaganovich would be able to stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

[Vabasion]

I don't see how Andreeva and Kaganovich would be able to stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As strange as it is a lot of problems are avoided by avoiding Destalinization and not publishing his crimes. The process damaged communism in the west beyond repair, killing it till the end of the Cold War as a legitimate political power. Soviet Union can survive by not rocking the boat too much, keeping the populace invested in it and avoiding militarism. Communism in one country Stalinist approach would do well.

 

[The Galaxy]

Here is an alternative some may not have considered.

A Soviet leader, who during the 1920s is able to have a strong enough military and industry that can support the Chinese communists and make China communist during the 1920s. Then when the great depression happens have this Chinese and Soviet military push into India and make India communist. The British can not do much because they have no money to do it, none of the western powers can do much. Then after India secure the rest of mainland Asia, then push into Africa and install Communism on the whole continent.

Then during the middle or late 1930s push into Poland and Spain, take the whole of mainland Europe. At this time if there is a communist government in all of Asia and Africa, then this communist force can easily number 40 million soldiers, Europe will be unable to resist such a large force.

This African, Asian and European communist force will be able to push into Alaska and then Canada and then the US whilst also attacking South America. After that take the rest of the island nations.

So in the end perhaps by the 1940s you have a communist world government.

 

[Padric1938]

As strange as it is a lot of problems are avoided by avoiding Destalinization and not publishing his crimes. The process damaged communism in the west beyond repair, killing it till the end of the Cold War as a legitimate political power. Soviet Union can survive by not rocking the boat too much, keeping the populace invested in it and avoiding militarism. Communism in one country Stalinist approach would do well.

This still ignores the mass Corruption and Economic stagnation that plagued the Soviet Union. Without Economic and Political Reform the USSR is doomed to fail. Continued Status Quo would do nothing except for souring the Populace's already uneasy feeling about the government and lead to the dissolution of the USSR even earlier then it did in real life. Also Stalin's crimes where well known even in the 1930s. The publication of them was just to show how the new soviet government under Kruschev recognized that these atrocities happened.

 

[Sarthak]

Vladimir Lenin (1917-1922)
Mikhail Tomsky (1922-1938)
Alexei Rykov (1938-1954)
Nikolai Podgorny (1954-1967)
Alexei Kosygin (1967-1981)
Nikolai Ryzhkov (1981-1996)
Gennady Zyuganov (1996-2014)
Olga Alimova (2014-)

 

[Derek Jackson]

1924- 39 Mrs K Lenin

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

Vladimir Ilych Lenin 1917-1924
Joseph Stalin 1924-1953
Georgi Malenkov 1953-1988
Nikolai Ryzkhov 1988-????

The more I read about Malenkov the more he seems to have been what the USSR needed post-Stalin. He was no saint, in the Leningrad Case he killed and deported thousands and he was complicit in Stalin's purges in the 1930s. But Malenkov was more technocratic and stable than Khrushchev, and more open to reform than Brezhnev. Had he been able to win the power struggle in 1953-55 the Soviet Union could have gone down a completely different path.

 

[Sarthak]

The Soviet Economy would have been 9/10 impossible to save after 1938, and 100% impossible when it became a petro-currency based economy; which Malenkov supported. The economy would not be sustainable to last properly.

Vladimir Ilych Lenin 1917-1924
Joseph Stalin 1924-1953
Georgi Malenkov 1953-1988
Nikolai Ryzkhov 1988-????

The more I read about Malenkov the more he seems to have been what the USSR needed post-Stalin. He was no saint, in the Leningrad Case he killed and deported thousands and he was complicit in Stalin's purges in the 1930s. But Malenkov was more technocratic and stable than Khrushchev, and more open to reform than Brezhnev. Had he been able to win the power struggle in 1953-55 the Soviet Union could have gone down a completely different path.