StarDestroyer.Net BBS

By Act of Q/ASB/Tetragrammaton/Deity of your Choice

You wake up tomorrow, and it is October 15, 1964. You remain in your own body, but, to your confusion, everyone now refers to you by names like 'Comrade Brezhnev' and, rather more distressingly, you have ended up in Moscow somehow.

That's right. You have become Leonid Brezhnev, on the day of his ascension to become the leader of the Soviet Union. You have just ousted Khrushchev from power, and the Party is yours to lead. You have been given a full working knowledge of Russian, Ukrainian, and the politics and bureaucracy of the U.S.S.R. The government is fully loyal to you, and will probably go along with any directive of yours that isn't obviously about destroying the Union from within.

What do you do?

I'd proliferate nuclear battle tanks to ferment third world upheavals and ethnic uprisings to defeat those goddamn Western capitalists.

Seriously though, I think I'd continue with Khrushchev's de-Stalinization thing and not be a regressive asshole. Liberalization of the Soviet Union and trying to implement a progenitor of glasnost before it's too late? Regulate the budget of the military without decreasing it outright (which would probably piss people off and get me killed), but still not allowing it to balloon any further. Hrm.

I'd invade China
They would never see it coming

I don't spend so much on ICBMs. I instead push for manned bombers.

Do I retain all knowledge I had now? Because If so, It's going to be time for both radical change and hardcore investment in companies that are interested in a little thing called "Computers".

Also a moonshot.

And....I'd definitely not do the whole afghanistan thing...cause that was just embarassing.


*****EDIT***************

Also, what Shep said.

Hahaha. The USSR trumps everyone. I'll know the development of the scientific progress for the next 30 years, hindsight is a great thing.

I'd try to institute:
(1) counterpropaganda in new forms of popular art (comics, magazines, et cetera)
(2) free speech as means of criticizing the government
(3) self-criticism (samokritika) - revitalize the criticism of bosses by the workers, it often stops theim slacking

Chardok wrote:I'd definitely not do the whole afghanistan thing...cause that was just embarassing.

Now, now You have a better way to do about that. Now that you have all knowledge from now, you can recall that Brzezhinsky has autorized funds to sponsor islamists in Afghanistan even before you do anything with the country, effectively prompting the operation. Accuse him and the US through the UN of supporting radical Islam; then send your intelligence to find out traces of Pakistan's involvement. Do all to ruin the US and Pakistan, without invading the country. Afghanistan is expendable.

My first policies:
1) announce a "heroic breakthrough" in science, politics and industry
2) repudiate Khrushev's ill-implemented policies in agriculture, but retain a more free speech policy
3) superheavylifters like Energia and the militarization of space get first priority with BURAN, BOR space fighters and SPIRAL projects receiving additional funding
4) cut down ICBMs and start a reduction of conventional arsenals (there's a good idea to peddle this as "detente" while at the same time increasing military potential in other spheres)
5) development of electronics - I need to be the first

One last idea: the "TELEBRIDGE" - a television bridge talk show, between USSR and the USA. One person from the USSR talks with one person from the USA via the telebridge. A cultural exchange helps to dispell myths a lot.

In propaganda: stress the real advances (free housing, healthcare, education).

In economy: deregulate somewhere to 75-25 proportions, introduce good legislation for a possible private sector. Do not allow privatization, instead, manage your assets yourself. Try modernization. Make feelers towards China. In the right moment if you can do it, you can use China as a huge light-industry facility - just as the West did. By doing this, more advantage is assured.

Stas Bush wrote:Hahaha. The USSR trumps everyone. I'll know the development of the scientific progress for the next 30 years, hindsight is a great thing.

ALso try to institute an actual quality check system on soviet NUclear industry; in both machinery and personnel, there was nothing disastrously wrong about either the VVER or RBMK; remember that they had to disable the safety systems to do a stupid "experiment" on the turbogenerators.

MKSheppard wrote:ALso try to institute an actual quality check system on soviet NUclear industry; in both machinery and personnel, there was nothing disastrously wrong about either the VVER or RBMK; remember that they had to disable the safety systems to do a stupid "experiment" on the turbogenerators.

Yeah. More automated safety, less chance for human fuckups. Also, since I know the failure that led to Chernobyl, I can (hopefully) explain that to the designers. They'll know what to do.

Also; in OTL, you built 40+ reactors, many 1,000 MW or higher in the European Soviet Union from 1956-1986.

I demand that 100+ reactors be built in this time frame. We can afford it by you know, cutting back on nuclear submarine production which was a dead end for the USSR anyway past the first couple of boats.

We also must construct the RBMK-2000 en masse.

Communism equals Soviet power plus electrification of the entire country!

Oh yes; I don't award myself three HSUs.

EDIT: I convince my generals that trying to out produce the West in advanced military equipment is a losing proposition. I buy them off by saying:

"Yes; I want to cut Soviet Tank Park from 10,000 vehicles (or what number) to just 4,500; but this also means that your tank divisions will be 100% T-64A equipped by 1972."

I'd withdraw all troops from Eastern Europe and work to transform the Soviet Union into a plural and democratic nation.

Mange wrote:I'd withdraw all troops from Eastern Europe and work to transform the Soviet Union into a plural and democratic nation.

Comrade, but the USSR is a plural and democratic nation. It's in the Soviet Constitution! You just need to actually walk the talk, instead of using it as face value.

Mange wrote:I'd withdraw all troops from Eastern Europe

Big boons from the West, but a huge blow for you, both economic and public. You'd have to work gradually.

First, I'd think, "This is the worst birthday present ever."
Then, I'd think, "No, this may be the best birthday present ever."

Oh man, building a proper union-wide nuclear infrastructure...with that kind of spare energy about...well, at the very least, I could try to prevent a lot of the environmental damage the Soviet Union caused, like the drying of the Aral Sea. Among other things, of course.

Stas Bush wrote:Big boons from the West, but a huge blow for you, both economic and public. You'd have to work gradually.

The ultimate problem with gradual reforms is that they have a tendency to snowball out of control, and like with the OTL nationalists will grab onto that to pursue their own ends.

I think it highly difficult, if not impossible to save Soviet communism, so the primary goal is to prevent the 1990s from occuring by making sure that the transition to a modern western nationstate is orderly and with a decent economy to back it up.

I'd openly pursue detene with the west and try to invest as much in consumer light industries and agriculture as possible with the resulting savings from reduction of the defense budget. All the while opening up local elections, followed by national elections about a decade down the road. When oil prices rise in the early 70s, all surplus will additionally be poured into economic and energy infrastructure (preferably nuclear) modernization.

That NOS Guy wrote:I'd openly pursue detene with the west and try to invest as much in consumer light industries and agriculture as possible with the resulting savings from reduction of the defense budget. All the while opening up local elections, followed by national elections about a decade down the road. When oil prices rise in the early 70s, all surplus will additionally be poured into economic and energy infrastructure (preferably nuclear) modernization.

Not only that, but with a primarily-nuclear infrastructure, less oil is needed for national purposes besides transportation -- and a mostly electric rail system (maybe excepting the Trans-Siberian Railroad) can go a long way toward that, too.

If it is politically possible, after taking some of the other suggestions in this thread, I'd actually invite Western oil companies in as a sort of limited partnership and allow them to use their expertise in developing oil in Siberia. Not only does this effectively kill OPEC, but it should dispel some of the "bad guy" opinions the West holds, as well as providing a HUGE cash source for the economy. (insert whatever Russian is appropriate for "To the Moon and beyond!")

Not that it would completely solve it, of course.

Mange wrote:I'd withdraw all troops from Eastern Europe and work to transform the Soviet Union into a plural and democratic nation.

European Economy is going to take a big hit earlier with all the Polish immigrants and what not, and the reintegration of East Germany etc. Not sure how the economic situation will turn out then.

Out of sheer nationalistic madness, I'd suddenly donate all territories lost by Finland at the end of WWII back to the Finns. Let's see how THAT rattles Finnish opinions.

Stas, was the Soviet Union still into Lysenko in 1964? That'd be something to kill utterly if I found myself in charge. Could do some proper research and development in genetics and genetic engineering after that.

And a big, big push into space, and without being cheap or cutting corners. I would have foreknowledge of what would be happening on both sides (and would know to not try that damn rocket with forty or whatever ridiculous number engines). We're going to the moon, even if it takes a bit longer than the Americans, and then we're settling down there, dammit! Which'll make the Americans have to do the same.

And on the oil - knowing that there's oil in the Caspian Sea, and that an oil crisis is coming in the 1970s - well, basically a rehash of Crayz9000's idea.

Crayz9000 wrote:Not only does this effectively kill OPEC, but it should dispel some of the "bad guy" opinions the West holds, as well as providing a HUGE cash source for the economy

Really? And what did this "huge" cash source, help much in the 90s? That's only best done in the 1970s oil crisis times, when oil is very expensive and the West will have to actually give HUGE sums of money to get access to oil extraction. Else, why do it at all.

That NOS Guy wrote:The ultimate problem with gradual reforms is that they have a tendency to snowball out of control, and like with the OTL nationalists will grab onto that to pursue their own ends.

Actually they don't. Radical reforms often fail. You don't have 5 years but almost 30 years instead. You inherit a yet-growing economy with still-intensive growth from the First Wave of industrialization. Your task: make the Second and Third Wave of industrialization intensive (i.e. technology based) as opposed to purely extensive.

Given the fact that you have a foreknowledge of science, that's easy as 2x2=4.

Mayabird wrote:Stas, was the Soviet Union still into Lysenko in 1964?

You're entering the year of his ultimate demise.

Stas Bush wrote:

Crayz9000 wrote:Not only does this effectively kill OPEC, but it should dispel some of the "bad guy" opinions the West holds, as well as providing a HUGE cash source for the economy

Really? And what did this "huge" cash source, help much in the 90s? That's only best done in the 1970s oil crisis times, when oil is very expensive and the West will have to actually give HUGE sums of money to get access to oil extraction. Else, why do it at all.

I actually got a little bit confused about the time frame. I meant that it should be done in the 1970s at the start, or shortly before the start (they do need to get the infrastructure in place first) of the oil crisis. (For some reason, I thought that's when Khrushchev was replaced, but never mind...)

Besides, the 90s weren't exactly the best time to open up Siberian oil. The Russian economy had already tanked (thanks to overspending during the '70s and '80s) and oil prices were already at all-time lows. In contrast, the '70s would have been the perfect time... with OPEC jacking prices through the roof, and Russian oil producing technology stuck at a barely post-WWII level, Western help would have been an amazing boon.

Crayz9000 wrote:In contrast, the '70s would have been the perfect time... with OPEC jacking prices through the roof, and Russian oil producing technology stuck at a barely post-WWII level, Western help would have been an amazing boon.

Yeah, but I guess you don't mean the extraction sector? Extraction was doing all well, it's the processing you might need to improve. Somewhere in the 1970s, Russia's biggest oil processing facility (Omsk NPZ) was fitted with French cracking technology, if I'm not mistaken, so we weren't really "stuck" at post-WWII levels here. But I agree we could've done more.

Crayz9000 wrote:For some reason, I thought that's when Khrushchev was replaced, but never mind...

Um... he was replaced long before the crisis, in 1964.

Mayabird wrote:Stas, was the Soviet Union still into Lysenko in 1964? That'd be something to kill utterly if I found myself in charge. Could do some proper research and development in genetics and genetic engineering after that.

Sorry for jumping in for Stas (I hope you don't mind, Stas), but the support for Lysenko's 'theories' were finally abandoned among the Soviet politicians in 1964.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:
That's right. You have become Leonid Brezhnev, on the day of his ascension to become the leader of the Soviet Union. You have just ousted Khrushchev from power, and the Party is yours to lead. You have been given a full working knowledge of Russian, Ukrainian, and the politics and bureaucracy of the U.S.S.R. The government is fully loyal to you, and will probably go along with any directive of yours that isn't obviously about destroying the Union from within.

What do you do?

I would shore up Mother Russia's strategic capability

When America starts sending troops to Vietnam I would demand their withdrawal, and I would deploy more troops into Soviet 'allied' territories.

When the B-70 is canceled and the machinery to produce the aircraft are destroyed, I would award McNamara with the Order of Lenin for providing an invaluable service to the Soviet Union.

I would make sure that Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Shevardnadze, and Yakovlev all have unfortunate accidents. I would try and get a Soviet Arpanet program started. I would suggest to America that their should be a joint Soviet-American moon program. Even if they refuse it the Soviet Union would get a lot of propaganda points. I wouldn't give myself so many medals and thereby make myself look ridiculous. I would retire a few years early and help to make Andropov my successor. From what I've read Andropov did a good job as General Secretary but he died too soon to make a difference.