Yuri Andropov Lives 10-15 Years Longer

I'm pretty sure Podgorny had been marginalized by 1970. He was still around - dead man walking type thing - but everyone knew he was no longer in line for succession.

From what I've read, he was marginalized at the end of the 60s, then was given more power in the early 70s to weaken Kosygin, then was under attack again from 1975 or 1976 (I forget which). But in '74, Podgorny is close to his peak in personal power (of course, that doesn't help much when others unite against him, so I place his odds of winning as low, but his odds of making a succession interesting as being high).

And thanks for the references. Ligachev's book was on my list already (not looking forward to it, the reviews I've read weren't too flattering).

fasquardon
 
From what I've read, he was marginalized at the end of the 60s, then was given more power in the early 70s to weaken Kosygin, then was under attack again from 1975 or 1976 (I forget which). But in '74, Podgorny is close to his peak in personal power (of course, that doesn't help much when others unite against him, so I place his odds of winning as low, but his odds of making a succession interesting as being high).

And thanks for the references. Ligachev's book was on my list already (not looking forward to it, the reviews I've read weren't too flattering).

fasquardon

Interesting points about Podgorny. I would just go back to the role of the 2nd secretary as a means of influencing the apparatus so I would agree that he would be a long-shot to ever reach the top post 1965ish.

I liked Ligachev's book for some of his anectdotes. And I only really read the first half for my own research purposes. He isnt shy with offering his own, strong opinions on everything and he is obviously going to be biased. But within the narrow context that I was using it (see my signature line), I thought it was quite good.

I also highly recommend Arbatov with the same qualifiers about objectivity. He has A LOT to say on Andropov too - both good and bad. And he was an Andropov protege so its not like he was trying to undermine him.

I have found that, when reviewing a biased account of something, I look for the anecdotes and opinions that confirm or contradict other accounts. From there, I can extract what I perceived to be reasonably accurate and of value without having to worry about the author's broader objectivity. Of course, the risk is that one buys into a biased narrative shared by several authors, either explicitly or implicitly. But, you have to start somewhere.

It's also hard with the Soviets because there is a lot of propaganda going around. For a long time Grigori Romanov's wiki page painted him as a competent, reformer. LOL. He was a corrupt alcoholic. I think the wiki page was written by someone in Putin's PR office. And I am not kidding in even the slightest. Point being, a lot of revisionist history going on in Moscow right now and I am sure it extends to reviews of books...
 
Again this kind of inserting biased viewpoints is why Wikipedia is often considered unreliable time and again; not that isn't useless mind you but best used for references to said sources being quoted or originating (and testbeds for fake wiki articles for fun like a certain thread for them here on this site).
 
Speaking of Andropov, if he were to be given another lease of life, how would he handle the tensions between the western and eastern blocs? IIRC, he almost sent the world to the brink of war during the Able Archer crisis and before that spent two years getting paranoid over Reagan supposedly trying to start WWIII (that also includes shooting down an SK airliner).
 
Speaking of Andropov, if he were to be given another lease of life, how would he handle the tensions between the western and eastern blocs? IIRC, he almost sent the world to the brink of war during the Able Archer crisis and before that spent two years getting paranoid over Reagan supposedly trying to start WWIII (that also includes shooting down an SK airliner).

I doubt Andropov would give Reagan an inch. While Reagan's optimism was seen as an opportunity by Gorbachev, I think Andropov saw it as something dangerous (and possibly world-ending if the Soviets didn't keep their guard up until the Americans voted someone reasonable and cynical into office).

fasquardon
 
Top