WI - Stalinist successor?

Suppose the USSR continued with Stalinist economic policies after his death.

How long could the system last?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I'm bumping this thread because I've asked the same question several times on this board and nobody's ever really been able to give me an answer.
 
Suppose the USSR continued with Stalinist economic policies after his death.

How long could the system last?
What exactly do you mean by "Stalinist economic policies"

All of the essential facets of the Stalinist economy were maintained until the fall of the Soviet Union (the Five Year Plans, the top-heavy bureaucracy in Gosplan, the favoring of Class A heavy goods, the strict control of the use of state as well as non-state collective property).

Khrushchev's economic policies were really just an evolution of Stalins, naturally suiting the next stage of economic development in the Soviet Union. Emphasis shifted away from raw production and increasing the exploitation of underutilized inputs towards development of advanced technology and new infrastructure.
 
okay, perhaps i should ahve elaborated. :eek:

I mean, suppose Stalin's Domestic, foreign and economic policies were continued throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. Without Nuclear war, how long could the system continue?
 
Probably until the present day.
What state they'd be in is another matter.
Using DPRK as a bench mark, I think a Stalinist Soviet Russia would be a putrid diseased bear of a country, and when the fall comes, a monumental drain on the IMF and the world economy.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Johnny's got a point here. Khrushchev's policies were (in a way) a continuation of Stalinist economics. However, Khrushchev's economic incentives were viewed warily by the Old Guard.

Molotov, for example, was in favor of the Virgin Lands program but believed that it should be implemented at a slower, more gradual pace, which would have been better in the long run. Without Khrushchev, there would have been no resources wasted on trying to plant corn in Siberia (without the recommended chemicals, no less!). Lysenko and his pseudoscience-garbed idiocy would have likely been gotten rid of later: Stalinists like results, and Lysenko's career had been one spectacular failure after another. He only survived as long as he did because Khrushchev liked him.

Malenkov favored a shift from raw production to consumer goods, but again at a slower and more gradual pace.

The MTS (Machine-Tractor Stations) would have stayed in place, which would have been better. Not only did they work well, but Khrushchev's rapid shift away from them (noticing a pattern here?) screwed things up in lots and lots of ways.

I just realized that I know more about Stalinist economics than I thought and that I'd never bothered to put it all together.

Now I feel stupid. :eek:

I think what Avalon may have been asking (and I am still wondering) is how long the semi-slave labor and terror economics would have lasted.

RE Stalin's Personality Cult post-Stalin: Like Mao's only stronger due to the perception that Stalin single-handedly saved the USSR from the Nazis and ensured that she was strong enough to reach military parity with the West.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Probably until the present day.
What state they'd be in is another matter.
Using DPRK as a bench mark, I think a Stalinist Soviet Russia would be a putrid diseased bear of a country, and when the fall comes, a monumental drain on the IMF and the world economy.
This is a disingenuous analogy. I have no idea how you can compare North Korea to the Soviet Union. Just because they shared a Communist system and had strong personality cults? Unlike the USSR, the personality cult people are still alive in North Korea; once Stalin's dead his cult is still alive but there's nobody to take up the mantel, so while it's still omnipresent it will be fairly innocuous. Don't criticize Stalin, but if you do it's unlikely you'll get shot or thrown in the Gulag for it (okay, maybe the Gulag, but probably not).

Resource-wise and population-wise this analogy is even more bogus. North Korea literally survives off of foreign aid. Russia has literally thousands and thousands of miles of arable land. Even at the height of collectivization there was enough food for the people (except that Stalin chose to continue exporting cereals even though his people were starving. Jerk.). I won't even get into the material resources the USSR compared to those enjoyed by North Korea.
okay, perhaps i should ahve elaborated. :eek:

I mean, suppose Stalin's Domestic, foreign and economic policies were continued throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. Without Nuclear war, how long could the system continue?
It all depends on the POD: Who's in charge? How long? What's the external situation? The internal situation?

It's really hard to predict the long-term butterflies if it's a whole superpower we're changing. Context absolutely needs to be given almost every step of the way.
 
Last edited:
Okay, say Stalin designates a hardliner as his successor. How does that affect relations with China and the rest of the world as well as domestic and economic policies?
 
Continuation of Stalinism will have intresting effects on demografics, Stalin deported large groups to Siberia and Kazakhstan, sometimes entire nations like the Cechens and Kalmyks, Khruschev allowed them to move back, but without him it what would have happened?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
How does that affect relations with China and the rest of the world.
The Sino-Soviet split is likely to occur as in OTL, but it will likely happen at a later date since the Stalinist line will be kept up. Mao will probably wait until some (probably minor) policy difference arises, accuse the USSR of "deviation" and then break off. The Stalinists probably won't take this well and will probably back a coup as the USSR did IOTL. If Mao becomes a serious threat, then China's going to be glowing green (again, as it almost did IOTL).

On the plus side, the world will be spared Khrushchev's reckless idiocy. No Soviet threats of WWIII during the Suez Crisis (the Stalinists opposed any intervention on the side of Egypt whatsoever) and no Cuban Missile Crisis.
as well as domestic and economic policies?
The troiky will likely be kept on, so terror is still going to play a central role in internal domestic issues.

Otherwise, see the above posts.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Continuation of Stalinism will have intresting effects on demografics, Stalin deported large groups to Siberia and Kazakhstan, sometimes entire nations like the Cechens and Kalmyks, Khruschev allowed them to move back, but without him it what would have happened?
They probably would have stayed in Central Asia.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Yeah, but will other deportations be carried out?
Most likely not. They ceased after World War II and there's no reason to think that they would continue. It's not like Stalin transferred them willy-nilly; he had reasons for doing it. Not necessarily good ones every time, but almost every population transfer he authorized was due to WWII and immediate post-WWII circumstances and considerations. One of the main reasons that the Crimean Tatars were deported, for example, was because that if they hadn't the local Ukrainian/Russian populace would have massacred them. That's not to say, of course, that Stalin transferred them for humanitarian reasons; he did it because the USSR couldn't afford to have unchecked ethnic cleansing running rampant throughout their territory.
 
Last edited:
Malenkov was also much more enthusiastic than the already technophile Kruschev about nuclear weapons - could we see an even bigger emphasis on rockets with substantial cuts in the Army budget ? Other "hardliners" (real hardliners, Malenkov was just on bad terms with Kruschev) weren't much keen on this ...

And also, as hardliners are being kept in power throughout Europe, are we going to see the productive specialization of Comecon countries come to life, with Red Army eager to crush "deviactionists" ?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Malenkov was also much more enthusiastic than the already technophile Kruschev about nuclear weapons - could we see an even bigger emphasis on rockets with substantial cuts in the Army budget ? Other "hardliners" (real hardliners, Malenkov was just on bad terms with Kruschev) weren't much keen on this ...
You're quite right in saying that the hardliners weren't all that comfortable with slashing the Army budget in favor of rocket forces. Since Molotov's going to be the one in charge, we'll probably see a continuance of the Army-over-all policy, though Malenkov may be able to push some of his rocketry plans through.
And also, as hardliners are being kept in power throughout Europe, are we going to see the productive specialization of Comecon countries come to life, with Red Army eager to crush "deviactionists" ?
You seem to have hit the nail right on the head here ;)
 
Top