What if Gorbachev Saved the Soviet Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 вер 2022
- Watch next: "Every Significant Mongol Successor State; How The Mongols Fell in 1857"
• Every Significant Mong... -~-
#Gorbachev #sovietunion #coldwar
In honour of the death of Gorbachev, here is a scenario where his attempted reforms have the intended effects of somewhat revitalising the Soviet economy and political structure. He takes a more tactical approach than he did in our own timeline. In our timeline he started Glasnost and Perestrojka around the same time, meaning that while the economy was collapsing in a massive way and failing all around, Gorbachev gave the politicians, people and press the means to complain about the system and the party.
Instead in this timeline he would focus on the economic side of the Union for the first decade of his rule, while also definitively ending the Cold War. Gorbachev, in his attempts to save the Soviet Union, would try to repair relations with China, while boosting relations with Europe and America. The new Soviet economy wouldn't be fundamentally altered, still being a largely planned economy led by bureaucrats, but state owned companies would no longer be subsidised no matter what by the Soviet leadership. This would finally give motive for even the state owned companies to innovate somewhat. The weaker state owned companies simply collapsed, while the more efficient ones would expand and innovate.
Exports of oil and gas to Europe would be the fundamental of the Soviet economy, while the Soviet industry gets revitalised to take care of the domestic demand, while exporting the surplus to Europe as well, again giving the companies a profit motive beyond producing what the state demands of them.
By the end of the scenario the Soviets would still be fundamentally flawed in many ways, but they survived. They would be a mix between our timeline's Russia and China. They would be richer and freer and Russia, while being poorer and freer than China.
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
Gaming Channel:
/ @deletedchannel1010
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
/ possible_history0
Audio editor thanks to E4Arakon. For German versions of video's by OSP, Kraut and more check out his channel!
/ @e4arakon
Bicycle - Reunited by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a creative commons attribution 4.0-licence. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Leave a like and a comment, even just commenting "hi" helps the channel out massively! Interactions boost how much the algorithm likes my video. As always to see more consider subscribing, there will be a new alternate history video every Friday.
Hi
Hi
If Soviet union last and survive and prosper till this day us will be having a big headache with both china and Soviet union economy growing sooner the military will be next and surely the china and Soviet will cooperate on South China sea and Europe with the Soviet vast resources,energy and technology and with china a big population and economy a war on 2 front for us is a nightmare
And I think the Korean war will be reignited and us will lose because of superior land forces or support north will be receiving from Soviet and china And Soviet will try to reassert it's influence on eastern block and china on Taiwan and South China sea pretty much I could say us will lose a land war but would win in a air and navy but china and Soviet might not be a threat on air and sea but they will pose a big challenge for us
And interns of industry us &ally might win against china and Soviet on industry but will lose on the will of the people to continue the war or fight in case a big war broke out not a proxy war like Taiwan,Korean peninsula, and around Europe or middle east
hi
hi
I'm little sad when I remember how he "opened" Pizza Hut in Moscow only to see it being closed because of sanctions
Soviet union during 1985-1991 was more western than Russia from 2022-present😂
@@galactic_mapper True
@@galactic_mapper being "western" is not neccesarrily a good thing and it doesnt even have a definite meaning
@@brtuh5865 It is why the most developed countries in the world are western?
@@galactic_mapper the flag in your name is considered western now and is a shit hole before, currently and whatever happens after it’s over things dont change over night.there are also countries in Africa Asia and other places considered western and there and not exactly developed
Soviet union dissolved on 91
Gorbachev died at age 91
Soviet Union was created in 1922
Gorbachev died in 2022.
RIP
He died in 2022.
The Soviet Union was created in 1922. 😳
@@CapzL Wierd.
@@angrymanwithsillymoustasche you’re hurting my brain
@@Mr.D.. Relax. Relax and read
Aye, rest in piss
Here in Germany, Gorbachev is something of a hero for being the man who basically allowed Germany to become one nation again. Just about the only soviet leader I don't have an issue with tbh. I personally think much of the problems with Russia today that people attribute to Gorbachev could more rightly be attributed to Yeltsin. But honestly, what else could you do with a rotting carcass?
Ye just like Germany It's rotting away
NO HE ISNT Stalin is you little bitch so keep you're mouth shut
@@buni1934 Okay then.
@@grenadaball7655 exactly
@GRENADABALL GAMING exactly he was the second best leader the Soviet Union had after Lenin.
I think an underrated factor in the fall of the Soviet Union was Chernobyl. Like, right after he eases tensions and opens up criticism of the government, the people see that the government hid a nuclear meltdown and exposure for two weeks. Without something so immediately jarring happening at the beginning of Glasnost, the urge to leave/revolutionize is likely not as strong or fast.
Yeah , "hid". The only thing that the Soviet government hid was that people would not return to their homes anymore (everyone was told that they would return in three days).
@@davesmith3023they could never
The sad part is Chernobyl is the single most easily preventable nuclear disaster in history. All they had to do was not try out ideas that required disabling pretty much every safety feature there
And the worst part is it gives nuclear an unfairly bad name
Ok
If the USSR survived then it could impact the nature of modern political discourse with Socialism and communism being considered less of a "failed ideology" as the main socialist superpower doesn't crash and burn
Tbh can it really be a failure when the issue was that Gorbachev was too quick and radical to fix a broken system made for the repressive years of the world wars and early-mid cold war?
It's like a transition from Capitalism to Socialism here in the US it's insanely difficult as it requires a transition
Socialism to Communism would also be just as difficult and be the final roadblock for Post Scarcity
Capitalism to Communism is also possible but it requires for the free market to lead to post scarcities so only social democracies can do it rather then the US.
I think you're missing a fundamental point. The Soviet Union failed because of Communism. Gorbachev tried to reform a system that was fatally flawed to begin with. The nation could not have survived even under the most ideal of circumstances.
@@georgfriedrichhandel4390 @Hanzee Dent The soviet union didn't fail because of communism in general. The soviet Union failed because of Soviet policy, leadership and corruption. What you said is wayy too broad and does a great injustice to the nuances of ideology. The fact that China survived or any other socialist state has survived regardless of where they stand ideologically completely debunks the "communism stupid" idea. Its like if the USSR won the cold war and the USA collapsed instead so people started arguing the USA collapsed because it was capitalist. It's not that simple at all, the USSR had the potential throughout its history to pick more beneficial policy long term or policy that would have made certain things more efficient and potentially increased its chance of survival. It could have survived had it reformed earlier and more gradually. Its not guaranteed but its a very likely policy. For you to ignore that nuance is missing the fundamental point.
@@VegitoBlue202 I'm not saying the USSR was inherently a failure, I'm saying the western perception of communism as a failure wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful if the main communist state could avoid collapsing in on itself. Yes this scenario is unrealistic, Gorbachev had the right idea but came too late and was too quick reforming and yes the USSR didn't collapse because it was communist and that inherently didn't work.
@@agonzalez7095 First off, you can't compare China to the Soviet Union. China is Communist in name only. There is nothing Communist about the Chinese economy. But when you say, "if it had reformed earlier", what reforms do you mean? As I said, if it had introduced Chinese-style economic reforms then yes, it might have survived but you cannot reform a failed system. The state set prices on everything, it tried to plan production five years in advance, it owned and subsidized all factors of production and it guaranteed employment which, although it looked good on paper, it also meant that many factories employed way more workers than it really needed. In more advanced market economies, these things are all decided by the market if the market operates correctly. So when you say, "make certain things more efficient", what exactly do you mean? The way to make things more efficient is through market reforms. In order to make anything more efficient, the state would have to make many changes. For example. rather than have 10 workers doing a job that can be done by 2 people, you would need to lay off the other 8 but that would mean unemployment. I am not ignoring the nuances of the system; on the contrary, those were included in my comment even if they weren't specified but yes, I would say the Soviet Union did fail because of Communism in general.
Good scenario, but I think you slightly downplayed significance of Soviet foreign affairs in 90's. I doubt Moscow would be completely apathetic to Yugoslav wars or Persian Gulf War especially if it would went on as in our timeline. Also what about Afghanistan? After all Soviets continued their financial and political support for Najibullah's government even after withdrawal. Would ADR even fall in 1992 if their only main supporter on world arena did not seized to exist?
Send a little aid but mostly focus on themselves
also what would the impact of a socialist Russia be on the Syria war if they still participated in it like in otl
@A Gonzalez a Socialist Russia would be far more powerful than Communist Russia would have been if it survived Socialist Russia would have surpassed America, Russia would be a monster
@@matthewtuckman4447 really??? We are not talking about Chinese style socialism here, the Russian economy's growth wouldn't explode upwards.
@A Gonzalez what, the Russian economy would be a monster compared to the American economy, besides you don't even know how the Russian economy would grow overall compared to the Chinese or American economies. What does it even matter if it is Russian or Chinese style Socialism.
I honestly think if he followed this path the world would be a lot better. Wealth given to the people instead of the oligarchs we see now. Idk how he would react to Yugoslav wars and if 9/11 happens and usa goes down the same path and later invades iraq would the ussr intervene or no?
I made a video where I sort of kind of answered your questions. It's called ''What if Tito's Yugoslavia & Lenin's USSR survived?''
Honestly, I think he would have shared intelligence with us post 9/11. Remember radical terrorists are a threat to him as well. The Intel shared is probably very much on the down low.
I'd say he probably wouldn't've intervened in Yugoslavia, because again, the Iron Curtain states are just money drains to the Russian Soviet as a whole. Neither will he intervene in Iraq, because that's not really his problem, and there are buffer states between Iraq and the Transcaspian Regions in the form of Turkey and Iran.
He WILL, however, intervene in Afghanistan. Having a US puppet literally touching the Soviet Union would be extremely bad, so I can see the SU putting all their military into Afghanistan to kick US presence away. In fact, I think it would be a straight up invasion by the Soviets: they kick out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban away, and set up a loose, socialist-leaning puppet state. The UN will kick up a fuss, sure, but I don't think this will escalate beyond being another split like that of Vietnam or Korea.
My country wouldn't be independent though
@@piretiris8223 is that a bad thing? You would still have representation if the USSR successfully reformed and became a federation
Imagine the 2017 100th year Revolution Celebration and the 2022 Soviet Union 100th year anniversary celebrations.
That would be interesting
Why celebrate evil?
@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo "evil😭😭😭" lmao, geopolitical understanding level of a two year old
@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo Gorbachev was not evil. At even the most cynical view, allowing countries in central and Balkan Europe created a NATO-free band of countries on its western border.
@@fedyx1544 What marxist BS.
@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo and as we can tell from this comment, it's coupled with a political understanding level of a two year old
How would this imapact India, Cuba and North Korea? I think India would still open it's economy but in a controlled fashion like China, potentially making it weaker in the short term but less dependent on foreign capital in the long term. I think Cuba and NK might go down a similar path to Vietnam. This would add way more legitimacy to "state capitalism" than in our own timeline, making it one of the 3 dominant ideologies along with Liberal capitalism and Social democracy.
@@JustinianG Nah I wont
India would still liberalise.....there was a massive movement and a push inside india to liberalise not to forget it happened because india was facing bankruptcy thus imf forced india to liberalise these things will still likely happen
It kinda already has its legitimacy from China though
India was already liberalizing in the 1980's I believe and I don't see the survival of the USSR impacting that
Nah about NK it would still be the same as OTL
I always thought that it was too little too late and it would’ve had to be started earlier under Kruschev, but the failure of the virgin lands campaign contributed to him getting booted..
It would have still failed. The state owned all factors of production including all factories, farms, mines and retail stores. It therefore subsidized the entire economy, including the unprofitable businesses. But the Afghan War (which was absorbing 70% of the national budget) and the collapse in oil prices exposed the failures of that system. There wasn't enough money to keep the economy going anymore.
The problem you ultimately face when dealing with the Soviet Union is this. It wasn't an economically viable state and even Lenin figured this out in his later years. Lenin had already begun the process of rolling back the economic policies that he imposed. The only way for the Soviet Union to survive was for Stalin to address that core issue and role back the economic further. Stalin in our timeline was a pragmatic man. He could very well fix the Soviet Economy and do nice with the other powers.... or he could secure for himself a long term rule over the country and live like a king, He chose the latter and the Soviet Union could never recover from it. Replacing Stalin with Trotsky also wouldn't do much better because Trotsky would roll back the reforms Lenin wanted for ideological purity.
Valery Sablin has entered the chat
Large state owned companies CAN be very profitable and beneficial for the population just look to Norway. The state owned companies can be directed and politically controlled if needed while they are still autonomous. The difference is who owns it, some rich old man or the people through the state.
I think part of the issue you have with the Soviet system is that the centrally planned economy was, well, not.
Five year plans were created and factory managers had absolutely no obligation to even aim for that target past the 50s. The world that the Soviet planners lived in was pretty much an economically alien one to what was actually produced, how much, and when. They had de facto devolved production targets to elected management which is the absolutely unworkable sort of "market without a market" that sets prices without accurate statistical information, creates complex plans that will never happen because a critical component is missing, over or underproduces components for a product because this or that factory decided not to follow the plan...
You don't have a failure of too much central planning but of the initially slow but later quite fast increase in the power and autonomy of individual factory managers to the extent they already acted almost like small capitalists BEFORE Gorbachev came to power.
So this issue would not reasonably have been solved with MORE central planning: the sheer quantity of information required to run a planned economy effective in all aspects is still impractical for a state of that size even with today's information technology. Earlier Soviet economic successes came from extreme focus on just a few sectors, specifically the heavy industry. This worked well during the era of constant warfare, but a peacetime Soviet Union would not succeed with a central economy for more than a few decades. Therefore, some other type of reform is required. If we wish to maintain some form of socialism, the cooperative system developed in Yugoslavia might have been used to formalize the system of local management you described and therefore afford some measure of proper information exchange and coordination without leading to the sudden plunge into essentially anarcho-capitalism that early Russian Federation experienced.
This is important. I think the idea posited by this scenario is straightforward enough: the Soviets might have squeezed a few more years of life into their system if a) they adapted their economy into more of a resource curse economy, centered around fossil fuels, and b) slowed political reform. But the Soviet Union's goose was already cooked regardless even before Gorbachev took power. It would be fair to say the only reason he was even able to come to power in the first place was precisely because the Soviet economy and system were already in crisis, and his ascension was a by-product of that reality, a move of desperation.
Here are some of the variables still in play. As you said, by the 80s, the Soviet economy was already a fiction of sorts, as state run firms relied heavily on a black market, and the numbers that made their way to state planners bore little relation to reality - and they knew that. If things sucked in the 90s, it was largely because so much of what had already been happening with oligarchs just became more known to the general public, as the pretense of socialism broke down. Politically, China had one thing unavailable to the Soviets. Yes, part of it was that since Mao impoverished the Chinese to below even sub-Saharan Africa levels, they had a lot less to lose with radical economic reform and opening up. But the other part was nationalism as a legitimacy narrative.
Remember how Deng came up with the slogan of "Communism With Chinese Characteristics"? That was a big deal - that was China formally abandoning Marxism's pretense to internationalism and a legitimacy based in adherence to Marxist-Maoist class struggle. From that point, Communism in China could be whatever the Party wanted it to be, as long as they were in charge. Communism in practice had always inevitably leaned into nationalism since Stalin, but it was far more nakedly so in China. Here, though, the Soviets were in a much more paradoxical situation. China, built on the multi-national Qing Empire, could more easily ape a Westphalian nation-state because the non-Han groups were smaller and had less organization pre-1949, with the exception of Tibet and East Turkestan, which the PLA was able to overwhelm with sheer numbers. The Soviets, though, were built on the Russian Empire, and those Republics were larger and more populated. Doctrinally and pragmatically, Lenin had to build in far more concessions to them, especially as their legitimacy narrative was trying to a) retain the old Russian Empire, while b) pretend to not be an empire. The result, predictably, was contradiction and hypocrisy, as ostensibly autonomous republics were in practice run by Communist Party officials appointed by Moscow.
So that meant a fragile balancing act. While China could adapt Communism With Chinese Characteristics, the Soviets - hell, it's even in the fact we call them Soviets rather than Russians - could not adapt Communism With Russian Characteristics without the other Soviet republics rebelling and seceding, which they could technically do under Soviet law. Of course, Moscow-appointed leaders wouldn't, but those guys could get tossed out by local unrest, as Baltic, Ukrainian, Kazakh, etc people would be up in arms. So no leaning into a nationalist legitimacy narrative here.
The other variable here is technology. The Soviets were always playing catch-up to Western technological prowess, and they could get by, to an extent, by just reverse engineering Western tech with badly made copies. But computers proved a huge challenge for them, not only in building them, but in seeing what they could do. The very idea of the personal computer was very alien to their way of thinking. So very slow adaption of that technology would keep them even that much further behind, like Cuba and North Korea in our world. The Internet, even if they integrated a Soviet Great Firewall (a Great Berlin Wall? A Digital Iron Curtain?), would have also been as fatal to the USSR as it would have been economically necessary. So... Gorbachev could have delayed the inevitable by a few years. But that system was already on life support when he took power, and there were simply too many internal contradictions and tensions to make past the 90s. And even that's without taking account of Western soft power, how American rock music, film, etc, contributed to the perception of the Soviet government as backward and not with the times.
I'm really loving this channel's content. I hope it continues to grow!
Thank you for making such interesting scenarios!
I'd love to see a part 2 video that goes more in depth on Soviet foreign policy. I could see former Warsaw Pact countries forming some kind of neutral buffer zone between the USSR and NATO.
Or USSR becomes a nato member
@@1mol831This is nonsense
@@1mol831 no
Good video, although an issue that I had about it was the lack of mentioning of the New Union Plan, since the August Coup took place merely a day before it was set to come into fruition
The main issue I see with this scenario is the Baltic and Caucasus nations. The Baltic states would still demand independence, Georgia might too (though this is questionable), and ethnic tensions between Armenians and Azeris would probably still explode like they did in our timeline. If Europe/Soviet relations wanted to drastically improve, the Baltic States would probably have to be granted independence.
I think you're overrestimating the west's interest in national self determination. Modern Russia already controls and exploits 190 different native cultural regions, but officials from the west barely mention it. It would make more sense for the USSR to try to get away from its image of being the successor state of the Russian empire by granting legitimate autonomy for its subject nations, and making the Russian SSR simply one out of several member states rather than the central one around which the others orbit
@@BogBilberryBagginsAGD I think theres a difference with the Baltics. After all, they were still nations recognized by the Western governments before WWII and their governments in exile still were around.
this is some really great and thorough alternate history, keep it up champ
Your assessment of Gorbachev is exactly the same as my own. Excellent scenario!
So this basically just a chill variant of the USSR with China replacing it as the prime instigator with the US by the 2000s. After 11:50, the USSR may end up in a Yugoslavia-like situation due to the need to maintain good relationships with the western European countries' for trade, which could be beneficial for both. While there may be some sentiment towards the USSR when it was in direct opposition to the US, the new freedoms under Gorbachev's reforms, notably freedom of the press and religious expression, are likely to lead to that idea being turned down by most Soviet citizens. This would prevent probably prevent the "War on Terrorism" declared by US President Bush, and generally leaves most of the soviet people way better of from whats happening in the actual time line rn💀. Not saying It would be perfect but I would imagine It would be more like Tito's regime in Yugoslavia. And speaking of which, would Yugoslavia survive if this happened or would It just collapse anyway since Tito died?
Ethnic tensions and nationalism in Yugoslavia were rising with nothing to do with what the Soviets were doing, so Yugoslavia would likely still collapse
As they like to say of Jimmy Carter, 'The best leader for the worst time.'
Soviet Union: Falls in 1991
Gorbachev: Dies at 91
Thank you Possible History, You make my day, because i love to listen to your videos while playing hearts of iron IV.
Really the best alternate history channel!
The problem is that if the Soviet economy recovers so much due to the reforms, then Gorby may not see much of a point in reforming the social aspects of the union if that could potentially imperial the sanctity of the union itself. Like you said, if things are going well, then who would complain? But what happens when things start going wrong? Then you have a faltering economy and a dissatisfied public, much like what happened to the USSR in our timeline.
Just because the economy improves, do not assume individual liberty improves as well.
Something like this happens in the Alt history show, For All Mankind. In the show Gorbachev reforms work and the USSR is still around in the early 2000s.
@user-dm7pz9kt1k is like Charles Manson and has no dick
@miless.9429 is like Charles Manson and has no dick
Great video, Keep it up!
my theory is that gorbachev dissolved the USSR in 1991 on purpose to make the soviet union last exactly 69 years, nice
Maybe you could make a video about if Gorbachev's later last-ditch plan to make the Soviet Union a confederation in 1991 succeeded
Fun fact:
From 1922 until 1936, Soviet Union was originally a Confederation.
Really? @@TheStarcoMarco
@@concept5631 According to Wikipedia.
Interesting
Wish it worked. The USSR should've evolved into an EU-like regional union, with free movement and trade. Would've avoided the mess we see in places like Ukraine and Karabakh
Great video!
Maybe USSR would have a democratic socialist economy in best case? mixed between state-control and worker co-ops?
corporativist
I don't understand people's opinions on the Russian Federation. It is still largely state owned economy except for being poorer and having oligarchs.
@@Vitorruy1So china, Fascist Italy etc; or tripartite social democracy. That would make the USSR based for once
Gorbachev explained in his longevity: "They won't let me in hell. They're afraid I'll run the place."
6:18 Lmao
Просто когда в ад попал Ельцин, им регулярно приходилось обновлять список погибших, ибо он постоянно удлинялся. Вот и не решились пускать Горбачева, решили подождать (наверняка у них есть срок, по истечению которого перестают начисляться жертвы политики). В аду тоже не любят бюрократию.
@@maksim05makarov what?
@@randomyankee8923 The demons have been counting the death toll for too long as a result of his policies. And then the term ended when the victims of politics are considered after the politician leaves.
Gorbachev was actually pretty based
Pizza hut
All hail Gorbachev
😹
Thanks!
@CityBeautiful It’s easy to just tell us about the problems- anyone can do that. This is why I have a great respect for your ability to offer a plethora of creative and practical solutions to the issues you present.
@user-dm7pz9kt1k is like Charles Manson and has no dick
@miless.9429 is like Charles Manson and has no dick
My parents lived in ussr . Gorbachev made a huge progress for people who lived in ussr because you could not start a business or own anything. He made a huge progress in human rights not even near to full justice but far better than it was unfortunately many people sabotaged what he has done. Quality of living increased drastically cold war was finally over . If only Gorbachev had a better conditions he could've transform ussr to become even bigger economic power and influence
Where are you from?
what are you talking about? russias GDP collapsed in half. millions died of poverty and despair directly due to his policies
You neglected to mention that the Soviet Unions problems existed long before Gorbachev and that reforms by the 1980s were both too little and too late.
The problem inherent in a planned economy is its lack of flexibility. In a private (rather than state) capitalist system, industries which fail are allowed to dissolve, leading to, yes, unemployment and Economic instability. In a planned economy failing industries are allowed to stay afloat even if they are inefficient meaning that efficient parts of the economy prop up inefficient ones. That’s fine with a public good, such as health, education, public transportation but it is detrimental when one is producing consumer goods in a competitive market. It allows a rot to develop in the entire production capacity of a state. The planned economy therefore needed reform to allow for more flexibility.
That’s before we look at issues relating to nationalism which despite centuries of repression, forced movements of people, genocide and settler colonialism, the Russian core simply couldn’t hold back. Once the republics started expressing themselves and became independent there was no going back. These republics incorporated some businesses and natural resources essential to the running of a planned economy. Without their control Russia had no choice but to end up at the mercy of the market.
If, the Soviet Union had reformed itself in the 1970s with higher oil and gas revenues they may have pulled through, but to blame Gorbachev is to let every other Soviet leader responsible for building an unsustainable systems off the hook.
@@n1nj4sp4rt4n No, Russia didn't use his policies, what Russia suffered was a result of Yeltsin and Jeffrey Sachs' Shock therapy.
@@Whatshisname346 "In a private (rather than state) capitalist system, industries which fail are allowed to dissolve, leading to, yes, unemployment and Economic instability."
Do you mean market, rather than private? There are non-private systems that can use market system, instead of central planned, for example cooperatives.
Gorbachev was one of the few moral leaders
Моральные лидеры не становятся причиной смерти миллионов.
@@maksim05makarov sad to tell you but all your leaders, epically Stalin. Killed millions Apon millions of people out of just simply speaking against the government, compared to Gorbachev which was placed in power in a weak country which was already collapsing and was having food problems, He did not want to kill million and was trying to make the soviet union more free, the bad thing he did was he did it way to fast and went to radical with the reforms in a small time period, causing the collapse. He actually had morals to fix the soviet system and give freedoms that the Russians and the soviet people never got from the government.
Another great video
I would really like to see how this timeline would ACTUALLY go
One other thing that will change with this timeline is if Gorbachov kept political freedom reform at the backseat,then bulgarian leader Todor Jivkov wouldnt have been ousted of power by a coup that was given the green light by Gorbachov. Instead a similar reform period will happen in Bulgaria that will see the gradual transformation of the state. Most importantly i believe that the complete chaos and all on out self destruction to the bulgarian state that happened in our time could have been avoided.
@user-dm7pz9kt1k is like Charles Manson and has no dick
@miless.9429 is like Charles Manson and has no dick
The economy already heavily relied on the oil industry since the 70s. Indeed, economic growth in other sectors was much lower and one of the main things that lead to economic insolvency was that the Saudis dropped their oil prices dramatically.
Of course it is. Hundreds of thousands of factories throughout the USSR were built just for beauty.
Exactly and economic growth periods in Russia since the demise of the Soviet Union directly reflect oil and gas price fluctuations. Over reliance on oil and gas was always the Soviet Union (and Russias) Achilles heel.
Please tell me the name of the music playing with violin in the backgroud in 14:25. I've been searching this one for a long time.
I think one thing here as a criticism of this video: they did a lot of these things before Gorbachev and it exacerbated the problem. And when it actually did collapse, the economy just... went down and never recovered. Probably it initially went down from simple system shock, stayed down from the breakdown of large and efficient internal trade networks, and never recovered because the economic system of "Putin's friends get what they want and their competitors fall out a window" is subject to much greater allocative inefficiency and cost overruns than any market, and yet somewhat useful to prevent PPP collapse and further destruction of Russian industry by foreign companies who see it as spare parts rather than a good place for investment, or if they do invest, may end up treating the country as a place to exploit rather than develop. Or at least, without a healthy dose of protectionism that's likely to happen. Low GDP and moderate PPP creates a situation where a country needs to be pretty heavyhanded to avoid speedrunning capitalisms' biggest problems.
If Gorbachev saved the Soviet Union, we would have no Lukashenko, no Putin, no war. Russia was much better off under Gorbachev than it is now, under Putin.
What do you mean? Putin would still likely be a big influence in Soviet Affairs, Lukashenko would have been a politician, and etc. The only way Putin doesn't rise is if Gorbachev somehow dismantled the KGB which would result in his assassination which would result in a power vacuum which results in a power struggle in Soviet Life between the reformists and the loyalists.
Baltic and Central Asian states would still be under Russian control
@@jerm70 Putin was someone who was able to play the game of a collapsing Russia. Without the rapid and disasterous shift to capitalism in Russia, Putin wouldn’t have his oligarch friends to boost him to power. If the USSR continued to exist, Putin probably would’ve risen through the ranks of the KGB, but that doesn’t translate to massive influence.
The fact people in your comments don't realize this is concerning
Putin or someone like Putin could have taken control of USSR, and even if Gorbachev succeeded it would have only delayed the collapse, and we would have the same situation we are in now, just in 2030 or 2040 instead
Good video, but i would like to add that the issues Baltic states had with the ussr were ethnic not economic. Even if the Soviet economy was revitalised the moment any chance to leave the union would come the baltic state would take it. So the problem is Gorbachev cant risk more liberal political system without the risk of baltic states leaving.
The soviets would of been more likely to continue to today if the Grigory Romanov had taken power and followed up by gennady zyuganov
Romanov advocated trade schools. Maybe he could’ve advocated state capitalism as a means of maintaining the Soviet Union.
@@CevicheGato what is state capitalism ?
@@dukeofmonmouth1956 basically how SU worked. The system where you can call a goverment as a capitalist, who owns the means of production and etc, and who hires all the nation to work in the company called state. Something like Amazon but what has 23 sq million km in owned land.
@@graymatterialist7076 I’ve done extensive research on the Soviet and modern day Chinese economy. They are both socialist to its core. Land is publicly owned which prevents property speculation and the rise of a landlord class. Additionally the SU state owned enterprises which were really government ministries were purposed for social needs, rather than profit maximizing. Soviet ministries preferred to keep their masses of workers employed rather than firing and replacing them with cheaper alternatives. This overtime stagnated many ministries and the economy because labour became more an more expensive and less automation was integrated into the production process. Coupled with the lack of investment because of the arms race and the afghan war. The Soviet economy pooped itself
@@graymatterialist7076 this phenomenon known as the falling rate of profit, was seen in the west, but the west choose to automate, ship jobs over seas and hire low paying migrant labour. The only solution to this phenomenon is to switch to a computer/data planned moneyless economy. Which China is currently experimenting in the Xiong’an new area. In order to prevent western and soviet stagnation.
A while back I found out about a videogame called “Perestroika Girls” which turned out to just be Qix but you were revealing a picture of a Russian girl, which was a lot less interesting than the game that it made me imagine, which would be a belt scrolling beat ‘em up in the style of River City Girls where the perestroika girls fight their way into the kremlin to enact Glasnost.
Really seems to me that Gorbachev got blamed for Yeltsin sabotaging the first few years of the Russian federation so he could concentrate more power in his position.
Good new PFP
A based timeline, also do you take fan scenarios from the comments or only from discord?
Hi, good video!!!
Honestly surprised there was no mention of the New Union Treaty, given it was so close to happening irl and was only prevented by the August coup by hardline communists who didn’t like the direction Gorbachev was taking.
This is the only divergence point between our timeline and Cyberpunk 2077's. Cool, huh?
If the Soviet Union, or whatever they call themselves, invested its oil money into education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc then they could start diversifying their economy and thus buffering themselves against downturns in fossil fuel prices. This would also promote democratization and greater freedoms as the people gain more leverage over the Politburo, so we could see a greater federalization of the Soviet Union over time, becoming a Eurasian version of the United States.
This is the optimistic timeline though.
In USA there are many centers of power like California, or Texas whose interests balance out each other.
In Russian Empire, no matter the version there can only be "Kremlin" (even if it's in St. Petersburg) Kremlin never gives power for more than a decade or 2. Because as soon as it does Empire starts to crumble.
@@anon_148 Not in and of themselves but having a healthy, educated populace is more amenable to new industries and technology than starving, illiterate peasants
Thats what soviet union did in real life. Education Healthcare and infrastructure. I think it was possible to save onion from collapse with hard hand. Nether Gorbachev nor Putschists had it. Its was possible to hold it with army. But the same thing that happened on tianenmen square would have happened here.
Education won't help you if you're on the streets with no jobs available.
Best timeline imo
Does communism die in the same way that it did in our timeline but with a little difference and if it does would the soviets change their name and their flag?
China keeps the name so i dont think they woudl change
realistiacaly speaking the debate of socialism fails would be diferent in todays days after the USSR collapsed people choose technicalities to say which countries comunist and socialist fail a good example is north korea and china. People say that north korea is poor because they are comunists but how comunists? if you look at their institutions and politics. it looks more like NK has more in common with a feudal hermenic monarchy from the 1600's then with a socialistic republic. Or china that literly has a party that calls itself the comunists and calls china a socialist state but they are not comunist/socialist because of technicalities in this timeline. the technicalities basicaly die.
Communism still has a legacy people remember it
Someone needs to travel back in time and convince Gorbachev to do this!
Gorbachov used all his power to destroy country and his people. He was a traitor.
As a Westerner I sympathize with Gorbachev for his liberal reforms, but I understand why Russians may not like him. They had lived under a tightly controlled society for several generations, but all of a sudden everything was different. The reforms were meant to create a more equal & liberal Russia (liberal meaning civil liberties & freedoms, not leftist/social justice stuff), but at least in the short term they just created chaos. Maybe if his reforms had been more slowly paced and moderate, they would’ve created permanent improvements, and we wouldn’t have seen the backlash against liberal democracy of the Putin era
The speed at which the reforms were applied was only secondary to the actual changes themselves. The shock introduction of capitalism caused the emergence of an oligarchy that left the people worse off than they were before. There's no way of confirming this without a time machine, but it probably would've been better to decentralize the state itself rather than the economy. That way the positives of a planned economy could be retained without necessitating a dictatorship
Guess summer was ending back then.
Which is surreal since Gorbachev died when summer was ending as well.
Nationalism. There were 15 countries forced together who didn’t want to be part of the same nation. Even Russia SFSR didn’t want to be part of the Soviet Union in the end. Without a sense of national cohesion, only raw force could have kept the country together. The ailing economy just made things worse.
That's not necessarily true. Tere were far more than 15 nations in the union, both in the form of ASSRs and unrepresented native groups. Only 2 of them tried to become independent, those being Chechnya and Tatarstan. Ethnic disputes only become relevant when other issues cause people to become unhappy beforehand.
The graph at 13:19 proves that the ecomomic stagnation is a myth.... There was no stagnation under Brezhnev, the economy was actually doing great
Nostalgia and a longing for the Brezhnev years hit shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and remains with a majority of the population today
It think it was primarily fossile fuel exports during the oil crisis and the USSR was spending 25% of that GDP on the military (which doesn't improve the standard of living)
I thought that the rationale behind glasnost was to undercut the opposition of party bureaucrats that were opposed to Gorbachev's reforms? For the reasons that you stated, Russia's economy had many differences to China: with the USSR a much more urbanized and industrial society to China, meaning more economic pain would be necessary to transition even partially to the market reforms, as well as a large class of party bureaucrats opposing any reforms that could reduce their power.
I personally feel like keeping the USSR together whilst reforming its economy is basically impossible. The Baltics are the USSR's weakest link, the moment the rest of Eastern Europe gets freedom from Soviet domination they are going to demand the same, and then the whole union collapses like dominos.
Only way you get the USSR to survive is if a hardliner takes power instead of Gorbachev, no reforms take place, and the USSR basically is a giant North Korea.
For at least until the hardliner dies
Not sure that is true. A lot of the Soviet Nations (especially weaker economies and less nationalistic) voted in the march referendums on remaining part of a new reformed Soviet union and all bar the Baltics, Moldova, Armenia and Georgia voted for the USSR to remain together. I think the August Coup completely destroyed the publics faith in Gorbachev (and massively increased it in Yeltsin) to actually achieve the reforms he promised and as such public opinion turned against a new Union. Baltic state independence did not necessarily mean total collapse of the union to nationalism.
@@Jay_Johnson It's true there was some support for the USSR before the August coup, but of course that coup was going to happen, what's surprising is that it happened as late as it did.
...or just not allowing Berlin wall to fall.
В хорошей временной линии произошло именно это.
Gorbachev the builder
*CAN WE FIX IT?*
"Apparently we can!"
Perestroika was doomed from the start, as it’s impossible to liberalize the sort of top-down, intricately designed industrial systems which existed in the Soviet Union. All that does is create chaos, which is exactly what happened.
Another major issue with Gorbachev’s reforms was that there was no funding, so they resorted to printing money. In a market economy, when the government runs the printing press, you get inflation. In a command economy, when you run the printing press you get complete chaos and economic breakdown.
ALGORITHM LETS GOOOOO
A traitor is a traitor, no matter what point you look from.
I love how the thumbnail looks like the Soviet Union has been gagged.
Glasnost and perestroika we're actually parts of Alexander II reforms in the late 19th century. Gorbachev, repurposed and revitalized these terms to direct the late stage Soviet Union in a last ditch effort to save it. It was a good idea, the communist party did not want either open this or transparency as they profited from their positions beyond what communism was supposed to entail. This kleptocracy completely replaced all ideals of Soviet/Marxist communism wich all but all but disappeared.
The better timeline
Ok commie
👍🏼
Yep
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
@@cgyoboi 🤡
6:21 i laughed listening to this. 😂😂😂
Nothing happened indeed.
16:00 as I know Gorbachev thought NATO will stop being the military (defencive?) aliance.
I'm not sure abot that but he was (at least at one part of the history) against spreading nato military forces eastward (more likely to east germany in the context), it's the fact.
nice video
*the good ending*
🤬
Jose Maria Aznar is absolutely correct...good examples are South korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Chile. Czech republic etc.
The best president Spain has seen
Hello hi hi hi
Great channel ! I will be watching . Hopefully you can go the way of other alt history channels!
A good scenario IMO
The main cause of the collapse was the August coup not Gorbachev's reforms themselves. The actions of the Radicals within the CPSU would directly result in the secession of numerous SSRs and inevitably cause the collapse of the Union
i know i sound like a conspiracy nut but Boris Yeltsin funding or helping the August coup sounds possible with how shitty the coup was.
Well 2022 wouldn't suck for Europe because Russian gas wouldn't be cutoff
Russia would be so rich in land, republics, and economy, it wouldn’t have to war with Ukraine. No save Ukraine virtual signaling. No Ukrainian refugee crisis
@@CevicheGato Precisely
Gorbachev introduced a law that a President of the Soviet Union could only hold office for eight years. In theory he would have had to step down in 1993, and make way for somebody else, who might have done things differently.
Under this reformed Soviet Union, would there still be worker cooperatives? Would businesses be run by the workers? Would there be economic democracy?
Imagine 2 world powers and economic systems competing with each other
USSR wants that but USA doesn’t
Cold war
6:02 the fall of the soviet union wasn’t do to a popular uprising. About 60% supported keeping the USSR, 80% in the central asian republics. It was disbanded by power hungry oligarchs, not the people.
То что большинство хотело сохранить СССР не означает то, что большинство хотело сохранить социализм. А без социализма, без солидарности, когда каждый тянул одеяло на себя и считал, что сосед его объедает, сохранение СССР было невозможно.
No one does realistic alternative history like this channel
"Leave a like and a comment, even just commenting "hi" helps the channel out massively! Interactions boost how much the algorithm likes my video. As always to see more consider subscribing, there will be a new alternate history video every Friday"
-Possible History, 2022
Honestly a better ending
While I'm also very against Communism myself, I gotta admit that this is a much better timeline than our own
@@echidnanatsuki882 as long as the Baltic states are granted independence, Warsaw is disbanded, and state communism is abolished, I think it would be a better overall timeline.
@@siyacer so true my gigachad
@@echidnanatsuki882 yes
Better than having a war that if it was 40 years ago it would be civil war
Baltics would find a way to either leave or kill Soviet Union.
The Baltics got dominated by the USSR in 1939, then they decided to collaborate with the Genocidal Nazis that wanted to exterminate them in 1941 and then they STILL got rightfully destroyed again by the USSR in 1944 so no, the Baltics would not have done anything, let's be honest. The only reason the Baltics got out is because Gorbachev was an incompetent, weak Leader that actually trusted the USA for some reason and actually believed that NATO would not expand. May he rest in Hell.
Man I just loved Your video. I can't imagine but Putin being like that superb Soviet leader of the XXI century after Gorbachev and like not a quite succesful Yeltsin in the middle... anyway, could you make a video where The USSR re-born in this day and age?? Maybe involving Putin at some extent 🤔 that would be a great video no one's ever done before as far as I know...
Like the vid but need to point out a mistake. 4:55 where did you get these numbers from?
Google _biggest GDP 1989_ and you'll find the Soviet GDP is not similar to that of the US, it's 10 times less. It's behind Italy, but with a much higher population the average Ivan is much poorer.
*3 times less than the US and almost double of Italy in 1990 sourced from the World Banking Statistics
If Gorby went the Dengist route (ie allow private businesses but only if heavily regulated by the one-party state + media still has to toll the party line) the USSR would still likely be around. The problem with him is that he wanted the USSR to go full on neo-liberal, just with basic public services, this is why he made Glasnost, advertised as complete freedom of speech and information (which is hilarious cus literally no country in the world does this) when in practice it was much more about switching up blind communist and anti-american propaganda to blind capitalist propaganda
This would ironically be a nightmare for Putin since this USSR isn't as Ambitious, Imperialistic, Oligarchic and Authoritarian as our own Russia XD
That’s not exactly true. The USSR was an outright empire (much like the Russian Federation) that functioned as a party state. The survival of the USSR means an even worse position for the minorities, not just within the Autonomous Republics but also within the token representative Soviet Republics. Russification is a constant problem for any nation under Muscovite rule
@@masonharvath-gerrans832
... What you said is pretty much similar to my point XD.
But yeah, your right m
@@echidnanatsuki882 no, I am insinuating that the USSR is just as nasty as Russia. You professed a different view in that regard
@@masonharvath-gerrans832 I need to research Russian Political Culture, like capitalism, imperialism, monarchist, feudalism, socialism all are still authoritarian under Russia
Socialism and Capitalism in theory should be more free
I notice that more authoritarian cultures like Europe and Asia always have the most brutal leaders rather then Africa or The Americas (Indigenous)
Think about it in order for socialism to work authoritarianism must be squashed inside the revolution in all forms.
@@masonharvath-gerrans832 Life in many of the constituent republics has gotten consiferably worse since they became independent. Even in places like the Baltics and the Caucuses there are many who will tell you the old days were easier than now. The Central Asian states are filled with people struggling to make it day-to-day, living in subsistence.
What if the Kalmar union was reunited at some point like. Either as the United Kingdom, united and remains united or as a more modern pan-Scandinavian or pan-Nordic version.
If you read any of Gorbachev's books on the matter or their western counterparts the most striking thing is years (decades) after the fact is he never 'got it'. Breshnev gave Reagan all the leverage he needed to destroy the Soviet Union when he invaded Afghanistan. Apparently no POTUS prior bothered to ask how the Soviet economy functioned...it was a resource economy that depended on the sale of energy (to the West) to function. Afghanistan allowed Reagan to approach Saudi Arabia to increase oil production. And he had a very blunt meeting with the French that they could trade with the US or the Soviet Union...not both). By the time Gorbachev took power it was all over but the crying, and much of the reforms he did have to carry out he had to be pushed along or lose the support he sought (and he drug his feet as much as possible and carried them out incompetently overall).
His market reforms were incredibly stupid....the direct orders by the state were required to keep the economy functioning because the entire system was geared on those 'big projects'. That caused huge bottlenecks and a catch 22 for those plant managers. They were given more autonomy but couldn't really make any changes to more profitable ventures because all this was interlinked (one factory required the outputs of another and since these were all state owned they didn't have any money...except what they could earn in backend deals & corruption). They paid workers for no work with currency that couldn't buy anything anyway (except for the very few goods being squeezed out by these state entities). Economically they made Yeltsins reforms look genius (corruption and all) as sad as that was.
Alternative Gorbachev going to Asia...China is poor in 1990 and not to mention in the US sphere. US policy makers the 80s wanted the USSR broken up (even if they weren't going to go into a hot war to make it happen). If things don't align a direction where it looks like the USSR is done, it was easy for the US to isolate them in this period...and they were in fact very nervous Perestroika and Glasnost was some sort of deception and did not trust that the USSR was reforming or would not revert (the coup was expected).
Politically, once the boot came off the USSR was doomed to fall apart. The Baltics wanted out and so did the Ukraine and central Asia. With the shortages and the outside pressure (they were in no position to wait things out until the 90s), they just couldn't use the military to that wide of extent to keep things together. The USSR is not North Korea. Trying to hold it together would have really gotten messy (likely terminally).
The Soviet Union definitely innovated before Gorbachev. Scientists and inventors were given financial insensitive and many won medals. Also, the Soviet Union invented satellites, artificial hearts, mobile phones, and indeed more, you can do your research of this.
It's mainly the fact that the state owned enterprises instead of workers, and also that the USSR was repressive very repressive, it would need to change the both of those in order to survive the post Stalinist socialist days
Most leftists now are pro worker self management, direct democracy, and egalitarianism instead of soviet/liberal democracy, state or capitalist owned enterprises, and discrimination.
Yeah but that would run against american propaganda
All of it stolen to the west through espionage
True - but the system remained the same. They did not embrace the microchip revolution, and it peaked in the 70s. Plus most of the people running the Soviet Union (from the top down) were also in their 70s, lacking the will or the means to do much change and progress. By the time Gorbachev tried, it was probably 5 years too late
@@Peteman81 It was good to maintain a socialist system, but yes, things could have been done better.
Brilliant video, very similar to my own on the same subject! ("What if the Soviet Union Never Collapsed?") The only difference is the attempted setting up of a Union of Sovereign Soviet Republics and the referenda on that issue, that would have turned the USSR into a decentralized state. Check it out and let me know your thoughts!
>that would have turned the USSR into decentralized state
Which would turned into centralized in a decade, as soon as Kremlin felt strong enough to choke liberties out of the regions.
It's what happened when USSR began
It's what what happened when Russian Federation got showered with fresh petro dollars, closing any budget problems
It's what would have happened in this case. The only way out of this cycle is decolonization of empire
Worker self management let's gooooo
I have a question: could Gorbachev or the Supreme Soviet of the USSR deleted Article 72. from the USSR Constitution and Article 26. from the Treaty on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in theory and practice?
Low oil and gas prices were one of the causes of Soviet downfall. He could not have relied on those revenues streams to pull through.
It's Gorbin' time
Rip Gorbachev
14:40 'People are willing to accept many things as long everything keeps getting better for them'
Not in my country, everything's going down and people keep accepting everything
cool video