Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352 
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 28, 2019 23:57:14 GMT
Here's another one I haven't seen much: 'No Khmer Rouge'. For one thing, Cambodia might be a whole lot better off than it currently is IOTL.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 30, 2019 2:15:18 GMT
What about 'USSR Adopts Capitalistic Reforms', basically along the lines of what Deng Xiaoping did for China? I'm unsure how plausible it is for them to successfully pull this off at the moment, though I do wonder if Soviet leaders who lived to witness those happen ever gave serious consideration to implementing something similar IOTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2019 14:39:51 GMT
What about 'USSR Adopts Capitalistic Reforms', basically along the lines of what Deng Xiaoping did for China? I'm unsure how plausible it is for them to successfully pull this off at the moment, though I do wonder if Soviet leaders who lived to witness those happen ever gave serious consideration to implementing something similar IOTL.
It might work, especially since there is some history of capitalism in Russia, albeit very distant by say the 1970s or 80's. The problem for the Soviet as opposed to the Chinese empires is that the former is very much multi-ethnic. Even within the USSR itself there's Ukrainian, Balts, Caucasians and the assorted people of Central Asia with multiple national identities, languages and religions. When you add in eastern Europe as well once you start to let a bit of freedom, even just initially in the economic sphere, which would mean restricting the party's total say, it would be difficult not to see other issues being raised. China, while it has some minorities their a very small number of the total population with the vast majority having a Han identity even if regional languages to a degree.
As such I could see a serious attempt at Deng type policies, if it could overcome internal opposition, having some success but its likely it would prompt calls for political reforms or at the very least an ever greater say on economic matters, which would undermine the parties controls. Also there are instabilities if say such policies are introduced over the entire empire. If say Poland or Czechoslovakia as it was then, adapted faster and grew more successful and say a more autocratic regime in Romania or E Germany for instance dragged their feet then there's going to be unrest in the latter states about them having less opportunities and not faring as well economically.
This is a problem I think China will ultimately face if they don't retreat back into totalitarianism under Xi but its going to be markedly easier for them as a largely homogeneous community than for a collection of people like inside the Soviet empire.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 30, 2019 14:48:08 GMT
What about 'USSR Adopts Capitalistic Reforms', basically along the lines of what Deng Xiaoping did for China? I'm unsure how plausible it is for them to successfully pull this off at the moment, though I do wonder if Soviet leaders who lived to witness those happen ever gave serious consideration to implementing something similar IOTL.
It might work, especially since there is some history of capitalism in Russia, albeit very distant by say the 1970s or 80's. The problem for the Soviet as opposed to the Chinese empires is that the former is very much multi-ethnic. Even within the USSR itself there's Ukrainian, Balts, Caucasians and the assorted people of Central Asia with multiple national identities, languages and religions. When you add in eastern Europe as well once you start to let a bit of freedom, even just initially in the economic sphere, which would mean restricting the party's total say, it would be difficult not to see other issues being raised. China, while it has some minorities their a very small number of the total population with the vast majority having a Han identity even if regional languages to a degree.
As such I could see a serious attempt at Deng type policies, if it could overcome internal opposition, having some success but its likely it would prompt calls for political reforms or at the very least an ever greater say on economic matters, which would undermine the parties controls. Also there are instabilities if say such policies are introduced over the entire empire. If say Poland or Czechoslovakia as it was then, adapted faster and grew more successful and say a more autocratic regime in Romania or E Germany for instance dragged their feet then there's going to be unrest in the latter states about them having less opportunities and not faring as well economically.
This is a problem I think China will ultimately face if they don't retreat back into totalitarianism under Xi but its going to be markedly easier for them as a largely homogeneous community than for a collection of people like inside the Soviet empire.
Mm'kay. So, the multi-ethnic, multi-national-identity status of a vast union directed from Moscow basically translates to a give-them-an-inch, they'll-take-a-mile response? Which would obviously pose problems for the Soviet leadership's ability to maintain the control that it probably wants to retain over the general population? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2019 15:27:21 GMT
It might work, especially since there is some history of capitalism in Russia, albeit very distant by say the 1970s or 80's. The problem for the Soviet as opposed to the Chinese empires is that the former is very much multi-ethnic. Even within the USSR itself there's Ukrainian, Balts, Caucasians and the assorted people of Central Asia with multiple national identities, languages and religions. When you add in eastern Europe as well once you start to let a bit of freedom, even just initially in the economic sphere, which would mean restricting the party's total say, it would be difficult not to see other issues being raised. China, while it has some minorities their a very small number of the total population with the vast majority having a Han identity even if regional languages to a degree.
As such I could see a serious attempt at Deng type policies, if it could overcome internal opposition, having some success but its likely it would prompt calls for political reforms or at the very least an ever greater say on economic matters, which would undermine the parties controls. Also there are instabilities if say such policies are introduced over the entire empire. If say Poland or Czechoslovakia as it was then, adapted faster and grew more successful and say a more autocratic regime in Romania or E Germany for instance dragged their feet then there's going to be unrest in the latter states about them having less opportunities and not faring as well economically.
This is a problem I think China will ultimately face if they don't retreat back into totalitarianism under Xi but its going to be markedly easier for them as a largely homogeneous community than for a collection of people like inside the Soviet empire.
Mm'kay. So, the multi-ethnic, multi-national-identity status of a vast union directed from Moscow basically translates to a give-them-an-inch, they'll-take-a-mile response? Which would obviously pose problems for the Soviet leadership's ability to maintain the control that it probably wants to retain over the general population?
I think there would be a tendency for this to develop. Possibly a fear of that by the Moscow leadership could be one factor why there was no real reform attempted between Khrushchev and Gorbachev?
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 30, 2019 16:22:51 GMT
Mm'kay. So, the multi-ethnic, multi-national-identity status of a vast union directed from Moscow basically translates to a give-them-an-inch, they'll-take-a-mile response? Which would obviously pose problems for the Soviet leadership's ability to maintain the control that it probably wants to retain over the general population?
I think there would be a tendency for this to develop. Possibly a fear of that by the Moscow leadership could be one factor why there was no real reform attempted between Khrushchev and Gorbachev?
I'm afraid I don't know enough to confidently speculate there, but I can see otherwise silent resentment coming to light as soon as groups oppressed under J. Stalin (and to some extent before him) start raising the issue, should the USSR have vastly liberalized on the economic front as well.
Additionally, I wonder what time frame it'd be reasonable to have PRC-esque capitalistic reforms take place, before it's too late to save the Soviet Union from dissolution like IOTL?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2019 17:40:37 GMT
I think there would be a tendency for this to develop. Possibly a fear of that by the Moscow leadership could be one factor why there was no real reform attempted between Khrushchev and Gorbachev?
I'm afraid I don't know enough to confidently speculate there, but I can see otherwise silent resentment coming to light as soon as groups oppressed under J. Stalin (and to some extent before him) start raising the issue, should the USSR have vastly liberalized on the economic front as well.
Additionally, I wonder what time frame it'd be reasonable to have PRC-esque capitalistic reforms take place, before it's too late to save the Soviet Union from dissolution like IOTL?
Khrushchev might seem like the obvious option but he was still very much a centralised state control man I think. Possibly if after his fall someone less moribund than Brezhnev gains power and as the SU starts to falter pushes for reforms. Although I think part of the problem was that much of the establishment and leadership were in denial about the problems the system was suffering. Plus there was a large minority, the Nomenklatura who benefited from the privileges of being party members and getting exclusive access to a lot of 'luxuries' which for the SU increasingly meant everything not actually essential. Going to have to persuade them to take their turn with the ordinary citizens which they won't like.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 31, 2019 13:58:55 GMT
I'm afraid I don't know enough to confidently speculate there, but I can see otherwise silent resentment coming to light as soon as groups oppressed under J. Stalin (and to some extent before him) start raising the issue, should the USSR have vastly liberalized on the economic front as well.
Additionally, I wonder what time frame it'd be reasonable to have PRC-esque capitalistic reforms take place, before it's too late to save the Soviet Union from dissolution like IOTL?
Khrushchev might seem like the obvious option but he was still very much a centralised state control man I think. Possibly if after his fall someone less moribund than Brezhnev gains power and as the SU starts to falter pushes for reforms. Although I think part of the problem was that much of the establishment and leadership were in denial about the problems the system was suffering. Plus there was a large minority, the Nomenklatura who benefited from the privileges of being party members and getting exclusive access to a lot of 'luxuries' which for the SU increasingly meant everything not actually essential. Going to have to persuade them to take their turn with the ordinary citizens which they won't like.
Alright, then. Maybe if J. Stalin pulled a Mao and screwed the USSR to a similar extent, I wonder if his successors would be more willing to give [shudder] capitalistic reforms a chance. Minority groups who might suffer under a Red Terror 2.0 and worse crash-industrialization would be more open to those changes, maybe? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 1, 2019 9:48:15 GMT
Khrushchev might seem like the obvious option but he was still very much a centralised state control man I think. Possibly if after his fall someone less moribund than Brezhnev gains power and as the SU starts to falter pushes for reforms. Although I think part of the problem was that much of the establishment and leadership were in denial about the problems the system was suffering. Plus there was a large minority, the Nomenklatura who benefited from the privileges of being party members and getting exclusive access to a lot of 'luxuries' which for the SU increasingly meant everything not actually essential. Going to have to persuade them to take their turn with the ordinary citizens which they won't like.
Alright, then. Maybe if J. Stalin pulled a Mao and screwed the USSR to a similar extent, I wonder if his successors would be more willing to give [shudder] capitalistic reforms a chance. Minority groups who might suffer under a Red Terror 2.0 and worse crash-industrialization would be more open to those changes, maybe?
To a large degree Stalin and Mao were very similar. Stalin had a somewhat larger industrial base and emphasised heavy industry a bit more which proved very important when the Nazis came but both were brutal and very destructive of the people unfortunately enough to be under their rule. Ukraine suffered very badly from the forced famine of the 1920s for instance.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 1, 2019 13:44:24 GMT
Alright, then. Maybe if J. Stalin pulled a Mao and screwed the USSR to a similar extent, I wonder if his successors would be more willing to give [shudder] capitalistic reforms a chance. Minority groups who might suffer under a Red Terror 2.0 and worse crash-industrialization would be more open to those changes, maybe?
To a large degree Stalin and Mao were very similar. Stalin had a somewhat larger industrial base and emphasised heavy industry a bit more which proved very important when the Nazis came but both were brutal and very destructive of the people unfortunately enough to be under their rule. Ukraine suffered very badly from the forced famine of the 1920s for instance.
A fair argument. I suppose when I say pull a Mao, I'm looking for a more incompetent--and even more needlessly brutal--J. Stalin who has similar ideas of forcing people to make steal in their backyard furnaces, for instance. If any of that did indeed occur during his tenure, then I have yet to read about it. Maybe something similar ensued in AH.com's Twlight of the Red Tsar TL, but that's a discussion for a different thread. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Sept 2, 2019 17:43:46 GMT
Creighton Abrams was one of the finalists for selection as MAC-V commander in 1964, which ultimately went to Westmoreland. Abrams favored training up the ARVN instead of ignoring them like Westmoreland did, less public engagement with the Media as opposed to Westmoreland's frequent meetings that helped to foster disillusionment as the war dragged on, and, most importantly, Abrams was the proponent of "clear and hold" as opposed to "search and destroy". Abrams also was behind the Cambodia Incursion, which makes me think he'd be less willing to accept Laotian neutrality, which could allow the U.S. to intervene there and directly cut the trail.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 2, 2019 22:32:36 GMT
As a complementary idea to my mention of 'Communist Adolf Hitler', how about 'Fascist Joseph Stalin'? I hardly recall seeing that ideological switch-around discussed much on AH.com.
|
|
insect
Banned
Posts: 380
Likes: 71
|
Post by insect on Sept 3, 2019 5:34:55 GMT
President Johnson keeps the u.s. out of Vietnam.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 3, 2019 12:29:21 GMT
President Johnson keeps the u.s. out of Vietnam. For one, maybe he'd stand a better chance of running again in 1968? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Sept 3, 2019 20:43:34 GMT
Creighton Abrams was one of the finalists for selection as MAC-V commander in 1964, which ultimately went to Westmoreland. Abrams favored training up the ARVN instead of ignoring them like Westmoreland did, less public engagement with the Media as opposed to Westmoreland's frequent meetings that helped to foster disillusionment as the war dragged on, and, most importantly, Abrams was the proponent of "clear and hold" as opposed to "search and destroy". Abrams also was behind the Cambodia Incursion, which makes me think he'd be less willing to accept Laotian neutrality, which could allow the U.S. to intervene there and directly cut the trail.
That sound like he might have made things a lot tougher for the communists. Whether final victory was possibly with continued supplies by both the Soviets and Mao to the north and without an invasion of the latter I don't know but you could see something that costs the communist enough that they might draw back, at least for a while.
|
|
