WI Yeltsin died during August Coup 1991?

[Wendell]

I don't get why people keep peutting words in my mouth.

I never said the USSR and the states in the Warsaw Pact were better off than they were today. I said to assume as you are that the USSR was unsalvageable and that its death meant that the world would automatically be better off makes no sense, especially when there are conflicts, like the one between Armenia and Azerjibaan, the Chechnyan mess, the plight of Russians in the Baltics, the war in Tajikstan, etc.

My reaction was to your strange belief that the USSR deserved to be "killed".

Half of those problems or more having been caused by the USSR...

 

[Faeelin]

Half of those problems or more having been caused by the USSR...

Sure, but caused by the USSR when?

The USSR in the 1980s is way different than the USSR under Stalin.

 

[Wendell]

Sure, but caused by the USSR when?

The USSR in the 1980s is way different than the USSR under Stalin.

The U.S.S.R. under George Washington is way different from that of Theodore Roosevelt. Nonetheless, it is legally the same country, and shares many of the same methods and principles as the earlier example.

 

[Faeelin]

The U.S.S.R. under George Washington is way different from that of Theodore Roosevelt. Nonetheless, it is legally the same country, and shares many of the same methods and principles as the earlier example.

Except one lacked slavery and was a few years away from giving women the right to vote.

Do you agree that the people of the Caucasus would be better off as part of an authoritarian USSR (authoritarian on the scale of, oh, China?) than they are today? Or do you disagree?

How about the people of Tajikstan?

 

[Wendell]

Except one lacked slavery and was a few years away from giving women the right to vote.

The late USSR was not as openly repressive as during the Stalin years, but it was still no humanitarian paradise.

Do you agree that the people of the Caucasus would be better off as part of an authoritarian USSR (authoritarian on the scale of, oh, China?) than they are today? Or do you disagree?

I disagree.

How about the people of Tajikstan?

Here, I would agree with your contention.

 

[Faeelin]

The late USSR was not as openly repressive as during the Stalin years, but it was still no humanitarian paradise.

And is Russia, or Belarus, or Azerjiban, or Armenia, or... etc. today?

Are they more democratic than they would have been in a reformed USSR state?

Oh, here's something to add to this list. One reason democracy died as an issue in China since Tiananmen is that the Chines have taken a look at the fate of the USSR and said, "Thanks, but pass."

Maybe a TL with a continued USSR perversely sees a freer China. Where does democracy for a billion people weigh on the scales?

(Now I'm jut being argumentative, but still).

 

[Wendell]

And is Russia, or Belarus, or Azerjiban, or Armenia, or... etc. today?

Belarus conducts itself as if it was still a part of the USSR The latter three are better off, yes.

Are they more democratic than they would have been in a reformed USSR state?

Sans Belarus and Central Asia? Yes. Furthermore, you assume that the Soviet reforms would be substantial and effective, whereas the history of the USSR would suggest otherwise.

Oh, here's something to add to this list. One reason democracy died as an issue in China since Tiananmen is that the Chines have taken a look at the fate of the USSR and said, "Thanks, but pass."

China is also different for other reasons, and trade with the U.S. has more do do with this than anything else.

Maybe a TL with a continued USSR perversely sees a freer China. Where does democracy for a billion people weigh on the scales?

That's rather optimistic. As a goal, however, an earlier POD would be better.

(Now I'm jut being argumentative, but still).

Nothing wrong with that

 

[DuQuense]

WI Yeltsin was assassinated during the August coup (maybe shortly before his famous speech on top of a tank)

To get back to the original Question---
I think whe would have a good chance of a Shooting Civil War. This would follow the Accidental Death of Gorbachev.
If not there is also the chance of a shooting war between the USSR and Eastern Europe with a possibility of it spreading West.

 

[Susano]

And killing the Soviet Union is a bad thing why?

Not so much killing the Soviet Union was bad, as ravaging and raiding its corpse, getting rich off it... and for Russia itself, the largest prt of the USSR, the fall of the USSR surely was bad. Economy absolutely crashed and is only now under Putin getting back on its feet. Faeelin is right, a China-style reform wouldve been better (for the USSR itself, obviously not for the vasall states who now got free). However, it seems the USSR lacked a pragmatic-technocrtic leadership group that liberalises the market, but not politics. Gorbachev did too much of the latter, thats why it all collapsed. He was too much of an idealist.

While I agree that things have not been rosy in most of the former USSR since its collapse, I would dispute that the world would be better if the Soviet bear was still with us in the same capacity as it was in 1982.

On most accounts, yes, but there are certain advantages of having a bi- or multipolar world, as that means no country can do what it wants unchecked.

 

[Wendell]

On most accounts, yes, but there are certain advantages of having a bi- or multipolar world, as that means no country can do what it wants unchecked.

This is true. That said, such orders do not develop instantaneously.

 

[Wendell]

To get back to the original Question---
I think whe would have a good chance of a Shooting Civil War. This would follow the Accidental Death of Gorbachev.
If not there is also the chance of a shooting war between the USSR and Eastern Europe with a possibility of it spreading West.

Might it be a bombing civil war?