WI: Khrushchev not replaced by Brezhnev

what if Khrushchev was not replaced by breshnev and continued as leader of the communist party of the Soviet Union until his death/retirement?
 
Khrushchev is assassinated or forced to retire. You don’t get a knifing without the party and nomenklatura behind it. If Khrushchev maneuvers to the point where such discontent can not be peacefully expressed through an ambush, you get a murder.

See Djilas _New Class_ for an insider perspective on why Khrushchev couldn’t just purge his way back to hegemony and conversely why they wouldn’t assassinate him.
 
OK, so would would change so that the party insiders don't want to remove Khrushchev?

I get the impression that he had the personality that he would have been fine with retiring at some point,instead of dying in office.
 
While this is not that the OP was asking, another possibility is that someone other than Brezhnev becomes paramount, especially as party leadership in the 1960s and 1970s was pretty collegial or oligarchical.
 
You keep the Stalinists out of power and allow a USSR open to reforms.

You think Brezhnev was a Stalinist? Am I reading that right?

But honestly, Brezhnev was pretty anti reform (though under his watch many reforms were in fact enacted, he personally seems to have been quite conservative and wanted to avoid rocking the boat as much as possible) so Khrushchev or really anyone else in power would mean a more reformist USSR.

what if Khrushchev was not replaced by breshnev and continued as leader of the communist party of the Soviet Union until his death/retirement?

Well... Probably you need some kind of earlier PoD that gives Khrushchev more support in the Party. The Cuban Missile Crisis, Virgin Lands scheme, the wreck he'd made of Sino-Soviet relations and numerous less famous disruptive acts and attempts at reform made him seem to many like a dangerous loose cannon. It is possible that Khrushchev could have quashed the Brezhnev coup if he'd paid more attention to the early signs, stayed in Moscow and been preparing for a showdown. But one can make a good case that Khrushchev was really politically dead, and had no more cards to play when Brezhnev moved against him. It is notable that when the coup was happening, he didn't really fight it. Not like he did when the Anti-Party group threatened to take over a decade before. One can read that as him just being too old and exhausted to fight with such vigour, or (more likely) that there just weren't enough allies left to fight with.

So depending on the PoD you pick, you get different outlooks. Either Khrushchev has avoided some some important mistake with world-shaping implications of its own, or he is clinging to power by his fingernails and very likely lacks the political capital to do very much. And since Khrushchev is also very much at the twilight of his life at this point. He was getting old and tired and in OTL died less than 7 years after losing power. Now, if he stays in power, he may live a little longer, due to not being so burdened by grief, or he may live a bit less, due to having a whole lot more stress.

Probably there's more liberals in the politburo, relations with China are even worse, relations with the West are even worse (no Brezhnev thaw here), Soviet R&D is a bit better funded (Khrushchev was a technophile, but the Soviet system was inherently technophilic so the top boss being super keen on the latest whizzbangs isn't a huge change from the top boss being a stolid conservative - the system is still the system) and the Soviet economy likely follows a path closer to those followed by their European Satellites. Hard to say if the Prague Spring is butterflied or not by Khrushchev in charge... It could easily be even worse under him.

The 70s and 80s could look very different with a liberal-dominated politburo ensuring that Khrushchev's successors are themselves of a more liberal bent.

fasquardon
 
Well, I mean, going back to his seizure of power after Stalins death how could his term be better so that he wasn't removed by force?

You need Khruschev with a different mindset. What led to his ouster were some of his ambitious projects that backfired such as apartments and well the infamous plan to combat hunger by growing crops in what would be unsuitable areas. There are also his diplomatic fuckups for lack of a better word namely stemming from impulsiveness and unwillingness to stick to a script.

Diplomatically The Sino-Soviet is difficult to get a read on because everyone has their theories about it, most of which hinge on it being China's fault be it they were too ambitious, or too ideological, or Khrushchev and Mao hated each other. I don't want to become biased or bogged down in this topic because I've studied this topic in college and want to write about academically from a less traditionally held viewpoint. The most I could offer without going into anything is when the Soviets consider peaceful coexistence, bring in the rest of the Asian Communists to talk about.

Avoid the Cuban Missle crisis at all costs, make it so that Khruschev does not get the "bright" idea to try and base missiles in Cuba that pissed off a lot of people in politics back home, and China. On this similar note make sure Khruschev reigns in his rhetoric, no shoe banging, no turning out missiles like sausages etc. basically the more successful Khruschev can be, the less he's considered a laughing stock and liability.
 
Hm. How do you think the Soviets could have done better with Khrushchevska building?

fasquardon

Admittedly, I'm not sure I only know of their derogatory name as Khruschev slums. Apparently they were quick but cheap housing, I supposed going towards the eventual transtions from mass to individual housing could have been a thing, but that I would assume requires better luck and management for the Soviet Union.
 
Admittedly, I'm not sure I only know of their derogatory name as Khruschev slums. Apparently they were quick but cheap housing, I supposed going towards the eventual transtions from mass to individual housing could have been a thing, but that I would assume requires better luck and management for the Soviet Union.
That would require wildly different Soviet doctrine around such things. Mass housing that was identical was seen as an ideological plus, promoting quality and shared experiences. On the practical side apartments are cheaper per m2 of living space than a house (combined services, only one set of foundations, etc), plus in the big cities you don't have the space for anything but large apartment buildings.

I half believe that Brezhnev would have done it better, purely because he was taller than Kruschev and so would have noticed how cramped they were. Small increases in dimensions would have made a disproportionate difference to how they felt, but as the actual trend was making them smaller once the Politburo stopped paying attention I fear this is probably unlikely.

Structurally a concrete box is efficient, cheap and you can build them quickly. Any alternative solution has to at least match it on those 3 requirements, given the limitations imposed on them they were probably as good as they could be.
 
Admittedly, I'm not sure I only know of their derogatory name as Khruschev slums. Apparently they were quick but cheap housing, I supposed going towards the eventual transtions from mass to individual housing could have been a thing, but that I would assume requires better luck and management for the Soviet Union.

The Khrushchevskas I've seen have been very much like the cheap mass-built housing I've seen in the UK and Finland from the same period, with similar problems and similar advantages. I've met Russians and Ukrainians who are proud to live in Khrushchevskas, and seen some cheap 60s housing in the UK that was very good to live in as well. And equally, the 50s, 60s and 70s mass-produced apartments in both countries could get downright ghastly too (some of Trainspotting features what this species could look like in Britain with a decade or two of poor maintenance). So while I can think of ways to improve the massive expansion of the Soviet housing stock that occurred under Khrushchev, the scale of the problem (with a massive influx of people to the cities, prioritization of industry under Stalin, then the devastation of the country by German invasion) I think means that however things are done, to come close to addressing the urgent need for ANY housing RIGHT NOW requires the mass building of compromise designs by people with poor building skills... So some of the resulting houses are (charitably) only gonna be good for a few years. On balance, given where the Soviet housing stock started when Stalin died, and where it had ended up by 1964, Khrushchev's housing policies were one of his more successful efforts.

fasquardon
 
Admittedly, I'm not sure I only know of their derogatory name as Khruschev slums. Apparently they were quick but cheap housing, I supposed going towards the eventual transtions from mass to individual housing could have been a thing, but that I would assume requires better luck and management for the Soviet Union.

The mass housing program continued after Nikita's removal all the way through Breznev's rule and probably even through the early years of Gorby and it did help millions of people to get apartments of their own even if it did not solve the problem 100%. Ironically, I heard the term used seriously mostly from two categories of people: 1st, those who lived in the privileged conditions during Stalin's times (and kept their apartments) and 2nd, those who lived in the terrible "communal apartments", got apartments of their own and kept complaining about "the good old times" of the Stalinist rule. The whole brand new districts had been built and looked rather nicely comparing to the barracks they were replacing or simply the untidy empty spaces. Turning area into a slum usually was up to the inhabitants.

Moving toward the individual housing was/is not practical in the big cities and, as I understand, still not a thing in a modern Russia except for the very rich people who live in suburbia. Organizing Soviet equivalent of the US suburban sprawl was not realistic because it would require a completely different level of the individual transportation (and infrastructure) and enormous costs for providing these individuals houses with a modern canalization, hot water, etc.
 
what if Khrushchev was not replaced by breshnev and continued as leader of the communist party of the Soviet Union until his death/retirement?

Nikita was replaced for excessively and not always successfully rocking the boat. To fit your scenario he should be alt-Breznev with the results known by OTL. ;)
 
One thing that likely happens if Khrushchev stays in is that the US and USSR do a joint space program.

That was never on the cards. The Soviets were running a massive bluff all through the Cold War, to keep the US cautious and treat them as an equal when in fact they were closer to being on the level of the UK or France. The closeness of cooperation required for a true joint space program, or even substantive cooperative projects in space, would ruin their bluff. That's assuming both sides can overcome the fear and hatred that the Cold War fostered.

Nikita was replaced for excessively and not always successfully rocking the boat. To fit your scenario he should be alt-Breznev with the results known by OTL. ;)

I think there are more paths open to a Soviet leader than "Khrushchev type" and "Brezhnev type" between 1953 and 1980.

fasquardon
 
I think there are more paths open to a Soviet leader than "Khrushchev type" and "Brezhnev type" between 1953 and 1980.

fasquardon

There are. But the OP is about his long-term political survival, which severely limits the realistic options. Of course, I’m not talking about the minor deviations, just about the “general line”. But you are welcomed to come with what you think is feasible and we can discuss your ideas.


So far, we are on the same page with the housing but AFAIK your analogy with the UK is wrong: to the best of my knowledge, the prototype was Italian housing for the unemployed (“Rocco and his brothers” was causing a lot of giggles even if the buildings of that type became popular in Brezhnev time).
 
There are. But the OP is about his long-term political survival, which severely limits the realistic options. Of course, I’m not talking about the minor deviations, just about the “general line”. But you are welcomed to come with what you think is feasible and we can discuss your ideas.

Ahhh. Yes, I see.

So far, we are on the same page with the housing but AFAIK your analogy with the UK is wrong: to the best of my knowledge, the prototype was Italian housing for the unemployed (“Rocco and his brothers” was causing a lot of giggles even if the buildings of that type became popular in Brezhnev time).

I am drawing an analogy with housing solutions that I have personally been inside of. I am pretty sure the "Khrushchevska type" is pretty much ubiquitous - the pressures, technology and philosophy that lead people to want to build such structures in the USSR existed across Europe.

fasquardon
 
Ahhh. Yes, I see.



I am drawing an analogy with housing solutions that I have personally been inside of. I am pretty sure the "Khrushchevska type" is pretty much ubiquitous - the pressures, technology and philosophy that lead people to want to build such structures in the USSR existed across Europe.

fasquardon
The main principles had been (a) cheap materials and (b) easy to construct. However, what most people are referencing as “Khruschevka” are actually the houses built during Brezhnev years. The first Khruschevkas (I lived in one for few decades) had been built from the relatively small and rather thick (important during both winter and summer) concrete blocks while those of Brezhnev period had been made out of the bigger and thin concrete panels (window being a part of a prefabricated panel). They were easier to construct and probably cheaper but termoisolation was much inferior and, IIRC, the cellings were lower. Cracks of the panels were known problems for some of the models.

Of course, there was nothing unique in the underlying “philosophy”: cheap mass construction that did not require high-skilled workers. Housing of the elite of various levels was a different issue: these buildings were made of bricks and had better interiors.

To be fair, there was something in between: so-called cooperatives for which people had to pay and which had been in many cases better built then the free housing. But they were in a short supply even in Moscow.
 
Top