Would the USSR have survived longer if gorbachev didn't try liberalizing and reforming it? What would change in our history? When would it have eventually collapsed?
Would the USSR have survived longer if gorbachev didn't try reforming it?
- Thread starter Angel Grace
- Start date
Maybe some years more and the collapse instead of peacefull like OTL is a series of civil wars with the possible use of nuclear weapons; there is also the possibility of the URSS becoming like North Korea on steroids with a leadership akin to Stalin
It is probably the least possible outcome of any. Stalin rather effectively vaccinated Soviet political system from allowing another Stalin to rise to power. Various techno-thriller fantasies about some hardliners coming to power in the late 80s - early 90s USSR are precisely that: fantasies. Simply because such hardliners did not exist within the system.
Chaos and fear of collapse have the tendency of create occasion for such type, we are talking about a nation plagued by famine and economic disaster
Maybe a decade at most. By the 1970s the Soviet Union was completely irreparable in its then-current state, and really could only be fixed by radical reforms (like what Gorbachev was promising) or intense, DPRK-style crackdowns which the USSR could not do. The Soviet Union's turning points were Khrushchev's government almost entirely destroying Soviet agriculture and rendering it completely reliant on foreign aid (especially American aid --- this is why Brezhnev's rulership is associated with bread lines, since Soviet agriculture was fucked by the Virgin Lands campaign and Khrushchev's fanboying over Lysenko) and the gerontocracy solidified by Brezhnev's kakistocracy.
Even if a hardliner (say, Romanov) comes to power, and even if they somehow strongarm the moderates (probably led by Yeltsin?) and reformists (definitely led by Gorbachev) out of power, and even if they somehow become an absolute dictator, and even if they butterfly or deal with the 1989 Revolutions, then the USSR still isn't going to last very long with modern culture and politics. Even if it does, the country was already becoming pretty disillusioned with the Soviet government (but not, necessarily, the system/branding).
Even if a hardliner (say, Romanov) comes to power, and even if they somehow strongarm the moderates (probably led by Yeltsin?) and reformists (definitely led by Gorbachev) out of power, and even if they somehow become an absolute dictator, and even if they butterfly or deal with the 1989 Revolutions, then the USSR still isn't going to last very long with modern culture and politics. Even if it does, the country was already becoming pretty disillusioned with the Soviet government (but not, necessarily, the system/branding).
I wouldn't necessarily go that far. Malenkov had a pretty decent shot in 1953, he was just outmaneuvered by Khrushchev and the moderate-reformer clique of the party --- including Beria, perhaps his most important ally. If Beria is either dealt with sooner, doesn't become head of the NKVD (perhaps Serov instead? Maybe Yagoda stays, but that's ASB at best), or is somehow just sidelined then I'd predict Malenkov could come to (at least nominal) power in a hardliner troika of himself, Molotov, and maybe Kaganovich. After that? Who knows.
Last edited:
No, the Soviet Union was very conservative and their leadership was dominated by ideologues.
The fact Gorbachev became General Secretary is evidence things was so bad not even many hard core ideologues couldn't deny reality
The fact Gorbachev became General Secretary is evidence things was so bad not even many hard core ideologues couldn't deny reality
But the thing is that Malenkov wasn't even close to be like Stalin simply because Stalin would never allow anyone like him anywhere close to that level of power.
My guess about what do you mean by this is that Malenkov was more of a Stalinist than Khruschev was but it was also a rather meaningless decision because if you do not have Stalin, you also cannot have Stalinism. Whoever would win the power struggle after Stalin death would have to do basically the same things as Khruchev did OTL because system that Stalin created was impossible to maintain and control without having Stalin at the helm.
To put it simply: Stalinists never existed as a serious political movement/faction in USSR or in post-Soviet Russia. They were always a joke.
This implies that "Stalinism" is fundamentally separate from Marxism-Leninism, which is false. The cult of personality around Stalin, perhaps, but ideologically "Stalinism" and Marxism-Leninism are one and the same. In any case, Malenkov was a fervent supporter of Stalin despite advocating more independent and technocratic policies, and Malenkov being leader wouldn't be a serious deviation from Stalin's time --- the person who would change the least is Molotov, although he would be weak at best (IRL he was really nothing more than a bootlicker) and easily be outmaneuvered by someone with an ounce of political acumen. Hell, even during Stalin's rulership he adopted some of Malenkov's ideas, particularly in 1952 about the economy, and Malenkov remained a part of Stalin's circle and the political sphere from the mid-late 20's to 1956; notably, he was a member of the Politburo/Presidium from 1941 to 1956.
I sincerely doubt this. When Stalin was leading the USSR there was still a serious policy of self-criticism, which was continued for a time (most notably, Khrushchev being voted out of office in 1964 and nearly voted out of office in 1957), and the "system that Stalin created" remained the system of the USSR until 1977. The USSR was by no means an absolute dictatorship and Stalin was not an absolute dictator, and the governmental system that was created in the 1936 Constitution wouldn't crater into the ground like similar systems did in, say, Yugoslavia.
I would say the opposite, actually. If Khrushchev didn't become paramount leader, then Stalin's mode of governance --- especially actually taking time to wait for and look at results, instead of simply giving orders, pushing for results, and hoping for the best like Khrushchev's --- would be continued. For all of his flaws Stalin ran a tight and efficient ship. When something slipped out of his control and he noticed, he was quick to rectify it; for example, Yezhov's intense and indiscriminate civilian purges (as stated in a letter signed by Malenkov, Beria, and Andreev sent to Stalin in 1939; most notably criticizing him for torture, "massive, unfounded arrests of completely innocent persons," and neglect of Soviet security) and blatant ploys to grab power (such as feigning mercury poisoning, which he admitted to). When Stalin found out, he was pissed at Yezhov. Yezhov was deprived from his position the same month the letter was sent to Stalin and arrested two months later.
This is just an example, but I feel like a Soviet leader running a tight ship and avoiding many of Khrushchev's personal pitfalls (especially his impulsivity) would do a long way in maintaining the Soviet Union. Of course, this wouldn't solve most of the problems, and I don't think it would be a one-size-fits-all solution. There would have to be policies to counteract demographics change, typhus epidemics, Zhdanovshchina (which Malenkov was, notably, a huge enemy against and despised), Lysenko, and the post-war consumer goods deficit among a myriad of other problems. But it would be a big step, certainly.
Last edited: