AHC: Khrushchev keeps himself in power with better security/political tactics, not policy change

raharris1973

Well-known member
Here's the challenge - with a late PoD from January 1963 or later, have Khrushchev preempt/prevent his own historic ouster in October 1964, by neutralizing the people who who deposed him through a counter-coup, or better political or security tactics or maneuvers or domestic policy, but no significant changes in foreign policy, such that by 1965 his position in power and ability to direct policy is firm for his natural life (Sept 1971).

First, how does he meet this challenge, and second, having met this challenge, what are the consequences for the Soviet Union and the world of Khrushchev remaining in power for 7 more years and the likely severe demotion/sidelining of figures like Brezhnev, Kosygin, Podgorny, and which other figures? (Andropov? Suslov? Chernenko? Romanov?)
 
Here's the challenge - with a late PoD from January 1963 or later, have Khrushchev preempt/prevent his own historic ouster in October 1964, by neutralizing the people who who deposed him through a counter-coup, or better political or security tactics or maneuvers or domestic policy, but no significant changes in foreign policy, such that by 1965 his position in power and ability to direct policy is firm for his natural life (Sept 1971).

First, how does he meet this challenge, and second, having met this challenge, what are the consequences for the Soviet Union and the world of Khrushchev remaining in power for 7 more years and the likely severe demotion/sidelining of figures like Brezhnev, Kosygin, Podgorny, and which other figures? (Andropov? Suslov? Chernenko? Romanov?)

It would probably depend on how effective - or not given the Soviet system - his reforms would be in meeting internal needs without antagonizing powerful internal blocs such as the military [probably transfer of funds from the military], KGB [fears to the system if people start getting the feeling they can have a say in events] and the established bureaucracy [we're very comfortable with the system as it is thank you]. Also even if he last's another 6 years is that enough to cement such changes or does the government revert back to a more autocratic and centralised format on his death?

If he could pull off some sort of Moscow spring - although not sure he would want to go that far - then does it tear the system apart earlier or - probably after at least some bloodshed somewhere down the line see a serious attempt at political liberalization? If he even attempts something like that what happens in the satellites? Also Mao is going to be even more pissed off with him. Mind you that could even be a benefit in some ways as more clashes on the Amur river would give some national solidarity to reforms I suspect.

My suspicion is that he can't get lasting reforms of any substance without the system tearing itself apart within say a decade or so. Which could end up going relatively safely as OTL or be very nasty indeed, possibly for everybody.
 
If you want change,you need First secretary who either become new Sralin/then we have WW3,defeat and world without soviets and probably USA/
Or somebody like chineese commies after Mao,who would turn soviets into capitalism.Soviets ruling world by now,then.

Kruszczow would never trythat,so his longer ruling change nothing.
 
For a PoD, I would have Khrushchev overhaul his agricultural team and plans from the beginning of 1963. Have him drop and repudiate Lysenko, delegate and broaden responsibilities for agricultural outcomes, and minimize hype and promises, while making decisions, or allowing decisions to occur, that are superior under the conditions of the 1963 drought and make that's year's harvest more typical and not such a disastrous disappointment.

As for the consequences, Khrushchev uses his time to build up Podgorny and weaken Brezhnev, Kosygin, and Suslov.

The really dramatic divergences take place from 1965 on. Khrushchev escalates the Sino-Soviet split escalate even more, retains the policy of keeping distance from North Vietnam, writing it off as a Chinese ally, and moves towards rapprochement towards West Germany and the west, even to the point of permitting German reunification, and entertaining or suggesting joint strikes on China's nuclear capability to the Americans.

Gomulka feared that Khrushchev was so obsessed with the menace of China that he might make considerable concessions to West Germany--and there was some basis for this fear:

***

"Even worse, at the beginning of September 1964, the West German press announced that Khrushchev was planning to visit Bonn.[33] The announcement came after a series of denials by Khrushchev that he had any such plans. Both Gomulka and Ulbricht were worried that Khrushchev, given his concerns about a potential conflict with China, might compromise their security interests in order to reach an agreement with West Germany. The visit by Khrushchev's son-in-law, Alexei Adzhubei, to Bonn at the end of July 1964 confirmed their worst fears. Polish and East German intelligence, concerned that Khrushchev might be planning a radical departure in his West German policy, closely followed Adzhubei's movements.[34] They did not have to look far to find disturbing information. The West German newsmagazine, Der Spiegel, reported some of Adzhubei's more heterodox statements. Throughout his trip, he constantly warned against the "yellow peril."[35] China, he declared, would be Moscow's "first front" from now on. In order to have a free hand for dealing with the Chinese, Moscow sought a modus vivendi with Bonn in the "spirit of Rapallo."[36] In a private discussion over Bavarian beer with the bête noire of Soviet-bloc propaganda, Franz Josef Strauss, Adzhubei put it more bluntly. "We'd just as soon give you Germans a hundred hydrogen bombs, form a corridor through the Soviet Union, and let you mop up the Chinese."[37] When discussions turned to Ulbricht, Adzhubei stated point-blank: He would not live much longer, he suffered from cancer.[38] Polish intelligence succeeded in obtaining tapes from "Western journalists" of some of Adzhubei's choicer comments. The famous son-in-law apparently declared on tape that when his "papa" came to the FRG and saw how friendly everybody was, he would tear down the Berlin Wall.[39] Of greater interest to the Poles was his comment that under favorable conditions — for example, if Warsaw tried to leave the socialist bloc—land could be sliced off and returned to Germany, beginning with Szczecin.[40]

"After listening to the tapes of Adzhubei's comments, Gomulka was furious.[41] He fired off a protest to Moscow. On 30 September 1964, Yuri Andropov, the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee responsible for relations with the socialist states, arrived in Warsaw to discuss the situation.[42] Gomulka's trusted lieutentant, Zenon Kliszko, played for Andropov the Polish tape of Adzhubei's conversations. Andropov considered the tape to be authentic; he returned to Moscow with a transcript.[43] The fallout from Adzhubei's visit could not have come at a worse time for Khrushchev. In September 1964, his opponents in the Soviet leadership were already plotting to overthrow him.[44] The tape was used to further discredit Khrushchev and his policies and to help justify his removal from power in October 1964.

"In the end, Khrushchev's opponents in the Soviet politburo vindicated Gomulka and his policies. At the Central Committee plenum that removed Khrushchev, Politburo member Mikhail Suslov, who spearheaded the attack against Khrushchev, suggested that Adzhubei's visit and his comments reflected a lack of judgment on Khrushchev's part. "[O]ne found out ... from foreign newspapers," Suslov lectured the Central Committee, "that Alexei Adzhubei had made totally unrealistic predictions and unacceptable judgments about the future evolution of the Soviet Union's policy towards the German Democratic Republic, as well as the Bonn government, and also about possible negotiations over a settlement of the Berlin Question." He pointed out that Adzhubei's remarks had damaged Moscow's relations with both Poland and the GDR. Suslov even criticized Khrushchev for his condescending attitudes toward the other socialist states. He singled out Khrushchev's decision not to purchase fighter aircraft from Poland as particularly damaging to Polish-Soviet relations. Suslov summed up: "One should not offend the leaders of the fraternal parties. They are experienced and hardened people..."[45]

"More importantly, the new Soviet leaders, Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin, reversed course and adopted a number of Gomulka's suggestions. Gomulka's perseverance under Khrushchev's pressure paid off at the January 1965 Warsaw Pact meeting in Warsaw. The assembled leaders, with the exception of Romania, approved a draft nonproliferation treaty that forbade joint nuclear forces, including the MLF.[46] More importantly, the Soviets reluctantly acquiesced in Gomulka's suggestion that preparations for a world communist conference proceed in two stages.[47] The new Soviet leaders even tried to repair relations with Beijing, but to no avail. Despite Gomulka's best efforts, the Chinese still refused to participate in preparations for a world communist conference..."

Poland and the Sino-Soviet Rift, 1963-1965
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Interesting.Alliance with Germany - germans would love it,americans - not so.They have army with H warheads there.
And,since soviets want attack China,we would have WW3 with commies on both sides.
And cyvil war in soviet union.

P.S I do not knew,that Gomółka really cared about Poland.Well,not about Poland but his rule over us,but still - he helped polish nation.
 
LBJ wanted to do summits with the Russians, and he did a brief one on the cheap with Kosygin at a state university in the US. Vietnam got in the way of a larger one. A German unification deal could be the occasion for a larger summit like a a Reykjavik or Malta summit (one of the Reagan-Gorby, Bush-Gorby ones).

Also, a Sino-Soviet war circa 1965, either makes the Vietnam War look silly and irrelevant and America question its need to escalate, or makes it "winnable" at least in the short-term, for the United States, by denying North Vietnam the ability to keep up with US escalation because the Soviets are pounding the Chinese supply line to North Vietnam.

This is all "world-significant"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top