WI Boris Yeltsin succeeds in killing himself?

[Unknown]

According to his Wikipedia page (and take it with a grain of salt--here's a link to it: Boris Yeltsin - Wikipedia), in 1987, after sending in a letter of resignation and being asked by Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to reconsider, future Russian president Boris Yeltsin attended a meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October of 1987, where he denounced the slow pace of the Gorbachev reforms, among other things--including opposition from other leaders making his position untenable and requested to resign from the Politburo. Gorbachev accused him of being irresponsible in response.

On November 9th, 1987, he apparently tried to kill himself and was rushed to the hospital with self-inflicted cuts on his chest--this was after Gorbachev had called another meeting on November 11th to launch another attack on Yeltsin and confirm his dismissal. He survived, and embarked on the path he is known for today.

So, WI Yeltsin had succeeded in killing himself on November 9th? Effects, anyone?

 

[theflyingmongoose]

Well, regardless of Reforms, the USSR was bound to collapse. Gorbachev would likely still get kidnapped, maybe the hardliners would take power. But all that doesn't matter: sometime between 1989 and 1995 the USSR will collapse.

As for Russia after its independence, I think stuff would turn out quite similar- Boris and Putin aren't really that different when you look at it. Another relatively corrupt anti-communist strongman would be elected.

 

[Gen.Jurten]

The USSR is doomed to collapse, but aside from outright civil war or genocidal maniac, it's hard to gets worse than Yeltsin

 

[Whiteshore]

Another relatively corrupt anti-communist strongman would be elected.

Hopefully not Zhirinovsky, in that case.

 

[Alexniko]

According to his Wikipedia page (and take it with a grain of salt--here's a link to it: Boris Yeltsin - Wikipedia), in 1987, after sending in a letter of resignation and being asked by Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to reconsider, future Russian president Boris Yeltsin attended a meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October of 1987, where he denounced the slow pace of the Gorbachev reforms, among other things--including opposition from other leaders making his position untenable and requested to resign from the Politburo. Gorbachev accused him of being irresponsible in response.

On November 9th, 1987, he apparently tried to kill himself and was rushed to the hospital with self-inflicted cuts on his chest--this was after Gorbachev had called another meeting on November 11th to launch another attack on Yeltsin and confirm his dismissal. He survived, and embarked on the path he is known for today.

So, WI Yeltsin had succeeded in killing himself on November 9th? Effects, anyone?

The USSR is doomed to collapse, but aside from outright civil war or genocidal maniac, it's hard to gets worse than Yeltsin

I don't agree with the assessment that the USSR was doomed to fall apart by 1987. The CPSU still had popular support, and with Yeltsin the anti-communist opposition would've lost it's most influential proponent.

Hell, without Yeltsin the August Coup (or an analogy to it) might have succeeded. I'm not an supporter of the "Great Man Theory", yet Yeltsin did play an important role in the dissolution of the USSR.

I agree with the assessment that Russia could've hardly gotten a worse deal than Yeltsin, though.

 

[Gen.Jurten]

Hell, this obituary said what I couldn't on what I truly think about Yeltsin



http://what-is-is.blogspot.com/2007/04/fwd-taibbi-yeltsin-death-of-drunk-must.html?m=1

 

[HelloThere]

Hopefully not Zhirinovsky, in that case.

Zhirinovsky is (either self-aware or not) "controlled opposition". He wouldn't even win an election if nobody else stood.

And I think many people underestimate the importance of Yeltsin as the populist leader of the anti-Soviet opposition. He could talk to normal Russians like no one other and his popularity rose highly through the 80's and the early 90's. Without him there would still be an anti-soviet opposition but it would lack a unifying and charismatic figure. This would help Gorbachev a lot.

 

[groundhogday666]

According to his Wikipedia page (and take it with a grain of salt--here's a link to it: Boris Yeltsin - Wikipedia), in 1987, after sending in a letter of resignation and being asked by Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to reconsider, future Russian president Boris Yeltsin attended a meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in October of 1987, where he denounced the slow pace of the Gorbachev reforms, among other things--including opposition from other leaders making his position untenable and requested to resign from the Politburo. Gorbachev accused him of being irresponsible in response.

On November 9th, 1987, he apparently tried to kill himself and was rushed to the hospital with self-inflicted cuts on his chest--this was after Gorbachev had called another meeting on November 11th to launch another attack on Yeltsin and confirm his dismissal. He survived, and embarked on the path he is known for today.

So, WI Yeltsin had succeeded in killing himself on November 9th? Effects, anyone?

I've seen this story before according to a much more serious source. IT seems grounded to real events. The OTL result was that, when Yeltsin returned, he decided that USSR was dead meat and played the Russia card. and damn it he was successfull, as seen in 1991.

If Yeltsin dies, I can see Nikolai Ryzhkov filling Yeltsin role before and after the 1991 coup. He went along well with Gorbachev (just like Yeltsin in the early days).
He tried and play that Russia card in the 1990 election, too, but was curbstomped by Yeltsin OTL...

Nikolai Ryzhkov - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[fasquardon]

So, WI Yeltsin had succeeded in killing himself on November 9th? Effects, anyone?

Yeltsin played a huge role in the failure of the new union treaty Gorbachev was trying to patch together and the subsequent break-away of Russia. But it is possible that if it had not been Yeltsin doing those things, someone else would have taken power in Russia and done similar things to undermine the Union government.

I suspect that things would be very different however, Soviet politics was especially sensitive to influence by minor character traits and all of history is basically the story of individual choices done for reasons that seemed good to that person at the time.

So let's say there's a small chance things go much as OTL (but without Yeltsin, there's probably no Putin), a larger chance that no Yeltsin means Gorbachev staggers through the finish line and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics becomes the Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics, there's far less corruption and the FSU avoids the economic damage of national borders cutting industries off from their suppliers and customers off from the industries, a small chance that things go even worse than OTL, and a small chance that the new Union treaty fails, but whoever replaced Yeltsin in getting elected to the Russian presidency in 1991 manages to keep things from getting quite as bad as Yeltsin would.

Yeltsin's ambition, corruption and weakness did a whole lot of damage in OTL, so probably the world without Yeltsin is a better place.

fasquardon

 

[theflyingmongoose]

And I think many people underestimate the importance of Yeltsin as the populist leader of the anti-Soviet opposition. He could talk to normal Russians like no one other and his popularity rose highly through the 80's and the early 90's. Without him there would still be an anti-soviet opposition but it would lack a unifying and charismatic figure. This would help Gorbachev a lot.

Maybe the USSR would have fallen later. But there is absolutely NO WAY the USSR isn't falling. Russia likes strong leaders that blur the line between dictator and democratically elected.

 

[HelloThere]

Maybe the USSR would have fallen later. But there is absolutely NO WAY the USSR isn't falling. Russia likes strong leaders that blur the line between dictator and democratically elected.

I don't believe in absolutisms. The fall of the Soviet Union was not inevitable. Just because a house is in need of serious renovation doesn't mean it has to go up in flames. Gorbachev could not have done anything and the Soviet Union would have seen the year 2000 (slowly descending, but not disintegrating). Even in our timeline there was an absolute series of catastrophes and failures, after which the USSR almost still existed in reformed form (as the "Union of sovereign Soviet republics"). It is a great myth in historiography to see the fall of the Soviet Union as an inevitability. Except for death, nothing is inevitable.

 

[theflyingmongoose]

I don't believe in absolutisms. The fall of the Soviet Union was not inevitable. Just because a house is in need of serious renovation doesn't mean it has to go up in flames. Gorbachev could not have done anything and the Soviet Union would have seen the year 2000 (slowly descending, but not disintegrating). Even in our timeline there was an absolute series of catastrophes and failures, after which the USSR almost still existed in reformed form (as the "Union of sovereign Soviet republics"). It is a great myth in historiography to see the fall of the Soviet Union as an inevitability. Except for death, nothing is inevitable.

I can see a path for the USSR to survive. I'm just saying by 1987 stuff was terrible and it would take a extremely good leader to pull through.

 

[HelloThere]

I can see a path for the USSR to survive. I'm just saying by 1987 stuff was terrible and it would take a extremely good leader to pull through.

And I want to underline the fact that even a half-dead leader who does literally nothing (like Brezhnev in his final years) could have pulled the USSR to the year 2000. Gorbachev at the end chose the worst possible path between reform and stagnation.

 

[theflyingmongoose]

And I want to underline the fact that even a half-dead leader who does literally nothing (like Brezhnev in his final years) could have pulled the USSR to the year 2000. Gorbachev at the end chose the worst possible path between reform and stagnation.

Yeah but there really wasn't anyone who could pull the USSR through 2020 or prevent eventual collapse by 1987.

 

[rfmcdonald]

My big concern is that, even if you get the USSR to mostly hold together into the 1990s, there is no clear way forward for the economy. How would you have an economic transition? By keeping most of the Soviet Union united politically despite economic dysfunction, you could simply replicate the story of 1980s Yugoslavia.

 

[Unknown]

By keeping most of the Soviet Union united politically despite economic dysfunction, you could simply replicate the story of 1980s Yugoslavia.

Only with WMDs

 

[HelloThere]

My big concern is that, even if you get the USSR to mostly hold together into the 1990s, there is no clear way forward for the economy. How would you have an economic transition? By keeping most of the Soviet Union united politically despite economic dysfunction, you could simply replicate the story of 1980s Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia imploded the way it did because the republics were pretty similiar in respect to their strength. As long as the Soviet Union retains control over Russia, it could by brute hold the other republics together. That's why Yeltsin was so important for the collapse of the Soviet Union: He captured the central republic. Without Russia the USSR could not exist.

I think that a oldschool-revolution is most likely in the case of economic dysfunctionality.

 

[LordMartinax]

Well there are really two scenarios I can think of here:

1. No real immediate effects. Events continue mostly as they did, though the Russian opposition is slightly weakened without Yeltsin, but it most likely finds another leader. The USSR continues its spiral. Afghanistan is still evacuated and the Warsaw pact does the best thing it ever did and dies. Now, the question is, who instead of Yeltsin takes the presidency of Russian soviet republic (not really sure who, anyone has any ideas?). Considering that even with the government supporting the communist candidate Ryzhkov and media being biased against him, Yeltsin still won with over 50% and Ryzhkov got less then 20%, communists are still losing that one, unless democratic block nominates someone even more insane then Zhirinovsky. The communist majority in popularity was pretty much dead at that point. Now, here is the thing. USSR is not going to last in its entirity and almost certainly not as a socialist one. It will almost certainly lose the Caucases and the Baltics. As for the rest however, they might actually stick around, either if the August coup is foiled before it even begins, or if the atl person in charge of Russian republic decides to work with Gorbachev and keep the thing allive, as the proposed Union of Soviet sovereign republics. States like Ukraine did approve the proposal in a referendum owevhelmingly, though it is quite interesting that in the referendum on the declaration of independence of Ukraine in december 1991, over 90% voted for independence. Make of that what you will. But yes, it is theoretically possible that the death of Yeltsin could mean the survival of USSR, though smaller and no longer communist. Its possible that the thing slowly disintegrates due to continous ethnic tensions, but who knows? Maybe it migh might survive untill present.

2. The same thing, but the August coup somehow suceeds.... though thats honestly close to impossible. The complete and utter incompetence of the plotters is honestly shocking. Not arresting Yeltsin, the highest ranked man aside from Gorbachev, who they knew would oppose them, and they did not immediatly arrest him is the main one, but others such as not securing the full support of the armed forces in Moscow itself, or theyre inabillity to actually agree how to proceed (should we storm the presidential residence and other questions) were also rather large problem. The fact that almost all the main republics, see here exactly who: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt, and that the coup did not have popular support, nor did the communists, basically doomed the coup.
Now, lets say that this changes. The people in charge of the coup are different with somewhat better plans, or something. They manage to actually fully secure Moscow, arrest the democratic leadership and declare that the reforms are over, separatism is not allowed, and USSR is fully back in business. After which the entire thing starts collapsing even more rapidly then before. The republics that were for independence before are ofcourse going to ressist, but they are going to get joined by the states that supported reform and were against the coup. Which is most of the major ones. And of course, the coup might have secured Moscow, but the rest of Russia is not in their hands, and as shown by the presidential elections, no longer for the old ways of the party. Even those that actually supported communism itself will be split between Gobatchev loyalists and the pro-putshists. Honestly, I would expect the whole thing to collapse in a few weeks, either by popular revolt, or if the members of the army deceided that they did not wish to shoot at their own people, which considering the disillusionment that has come with Afghanistan and the general degradation of USSr is quite likely. In that case the USSR is still collapsing, though this time the August coupe was slightly more sucessfull then OTL.
Or the other option. The whole thing errupts in a bloody civil war, with secessionists, Coupists, and reformist reds all fighting each othe for various goals. Potentionally with nukes (depending on how long the civil war will go on). Now, I would expect such a war to be rather quick, considering the lack of support the Coup had, but with civil wars it might go many ways. In this world, the USSR will die with a bloody storm just as it was created.

In conclusion I personally belive that the anti-communist opposition would have found someone to rally around even without Yeltsin, and while this person would probably not get the same results as Yeltsin in 1991 elections, he would have still won, with the other movements in USSR going as they did OTL. Where change will come is the August coup or its equivalent. There, it can either go better or worse, depending on ones perspective, or just go totally wrong (civil war case).

So yeah, Yeltsin was not the worst that could have happened to Russia. What an unsettling thought....

 

[SandroPertini98]

I think that Andrey Kozyrev could be a good replacement of Yelstin as Chiarman of Russian FSR. As it was Yelstin who pushed to create the Presidential position to increase his power against the legislature probably this role would not be created. After the coup’s failure, Gorbachev returns in Moscow and then we have two ways:
- As IOTL, USSR collapses and Russia is it’s successor with Kozyrev as Chairman. However, due its parliamentary system and his unwillingness to use dictatorial powers, he is removed in 1993. Khasbulatov becomes new Chiarman but political and economic weakness allows a later emergence of a strongman (Lebed?) who transform Russia in a presidential system.
- Kozyrev doesn’t plot with autonomous republics leaders to betray Gorbachev. USSR is reformed somehow and able to stay together although losing Baltics and part of Caucasian countries. By mid of 1990s Kozyrev is promoted as main opposition candidate and beats Gorbachev in free elections, becoming the second President of the new Union. From his pulpit he can attempts to reform Russia in a more liberaldemocratic nation, fending of attacks from both communists and nationalists.

 

[FinnishFury]

Yugoslavia imploded the way it did because the republics were pretty similiar in respect to their strength. As long as the Soviet Union retains control over Russia, it could by brute hold the other republics together. That's why Yeltsin was so important for the collapse of the Soviet Union: He captured the central republic. Without Russia the USSR could not exist.

I think that a oldschool-revolution is most likely in the case of economic dysfunctionality.

If Yeltsin's position as the number one ethnic nationalist in the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) isn't filled by anyone and remains empty, that only means that the August coup hardliners have somewhat more solid control over the RSFSR. This doesn't remove the issue of the discontent of the other Soviet republics.
The Baltic republics were just waiting for a chance to jump off the ship, as were their equivalents in Caucasus and Central Asia.

If the August coup would've succeeded, the new administration would have had to deal with the looming issues of consumer goods shortage, near-worthless Soviet ruble, dwindling foreign exchange reserves, large amounts of foreign debt, the aforementioned ethnic tensions, economic stagnation and also tensions with the West. When President Bush was informed of the coup he made the announcement that the United States would not recognise the legitimacy of the self-proclaimed government of the hardliners so there was no way that the West would have given the hardliners any breathing space. The leader of the German opposition, chairman of the SPD, Björn Engholm even brought forward the possibility of economic and political sanctions.

The hardliners might've bought the Union a bit longer lifespan, a year at best. The economic troubles were so great by August 1991 that there was no way of saving the union.