Q&A with Comrade Chairman Malenkov

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

OOC: I would like to give due credit behind the foundation idea to Sky Reavers, who I consider to be a really good fellow, aside from our leaders' IC beef

off the cuff "Yes Kaarel, I think the connection is properly being broadcasted. Thank you."

to audience "Greetings! My name is Georgy Maximilianovich Malenkov, and I am the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and additionally am the General Secretary of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin-Stalin. I address today, not our Union, but instead, to the rest of the world, especially the English-speaking world, although I can respond to questions in French and German as well.

The United States of America and her leader, Lyndon Johnson, are engaged in a propaganda war to discredit Marxism-Leninism and Joseph Stalin. I myself have observed the pamphlets distributed by the bourgeoisie republics which make us Bolsheviks or 'bolshies', as they call us, appear like Satan's own offspring. Hence, today, I stand before you, to state the Soviet and the Stalinist point of view on any and all world issues, whether of my time, or whether of even 59 years later in 2023.

To ask me a question, you may simply call at +7 0711 1917, and I will be glad to present the Stalinist, Soviet point of view. Thank you."

(OOC: Please note that the views expressed below may not necessarily be my real views and will solely be a product of a brain who has lived through purges and risen under the patronage of Joseph Stalin and as his anointed successor, leads the Soviet state after overthrowing Khrushchev.

Also, you can ask questions regarding anything, even the war in Ukraine)

[Feyrisshire]

Comrade Chairman Malenkov, as you are aware, Khruschev's policy in agriculture was disastrous. He dismantled the collective farms, abolished the MTS, and launched the disastrous and ill-thought-out Virgin Lands Campaign which led to a long-term decline in Soviet agriculture and the food security of the USSR.

How about you, what will be your policy on Soviet agriculture?

Will you also reinstate Lysenko as done by Khrushchev, or get rid of him just as Stalin and Pravda was planning to do by the turn of the 1950s before being reinstated by Khruschev?

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Thank you for the question. You may not know, but upon becoming Premier in 1953, my first priority was the agriculture of our Union. Khrushchev momentarily ousted me and did cause significant damage to my radical reforms, but as I managed to lead the Second Socialist Revolution against him, these reforms continued and bore fruit.

My reforms have four principal aspects:
1) Reducing the taxation burden on the farmers to give incentive to production
2) Increasing procurement rates to incentivize more production
3) Reducing fertilizer prices and in many oblasts, allocating fertilizers for free
4) Promotion of microunits of agro-economic resistance

The fourth aspect deals with the idea that while private plots of land, which re-emerged in 1940 under Comrade Stalin, cannot be fully separated from collective farms, they should be given importance and be made 'Microunits of Agro-Economic Resistance' to ensure that the Second Revolution not be undermined. The concept is that if these microunits, with their autonomy from kolkozhes, manage to deliver economic growth without yielding kulakization, they will help in securing the Second Revolution and thus be patriotic socialists while at the same time ensuring maximum production.

As to the financial aspect of this, it is not unfounded to wonder how will we able to finance such a huge overhaul. Perhaps some of the Westerners will be amazed, but I had to reallocate portions of the military budget by reducing the number of soldiers in our Union. I additionally had to reduce the size of the forces in Siberia, considering that the USSR faces no military threat from its dear brother, China. Furthermore, I ordered much of the profits of the oil industry to be used in radically reforming agriculture, rather than being a typical Khrushchev and digging oil in Siberia only to plant corn over the oil.

I have also promoted consumer goods heavily. A most notable example I will share here. In America, there are a lot of companies selling the potato chips, which are cheap, easy to produce and though low in nutrition, delicious in taste. In the USSR, we have managed to rival it by the Kartofyel Disk, which is in many ways similar to the potato chips, but with greater emphasis on nutrition, as the proletariat and peasant must, if addicted to something, be at least addicted to nutrition and labor harder for the motherland.

Additionally, with regards to Lysenko, I would like to be very frank here. In our Union, when one rival wins and another rival loses, the associates of the losing rival are also downgraded. Lysenko had sided with Khrushchev when the Second Revolution had begun and I managed to find out that Lysenkoism is, as the Englishmen say, "pure tosh". I consider myself to be a technocrat, and could not tolerate such a degradation of the sciences merely to appease ideologues. Hence, he now is a retired man living in Minsk. I have no plans to reinstate Lysenko, as now on the basis of Mendelian laws, we have managed to a great deal rebuild progress in the biological sciences. My own son Andrei is an associate professor in Biological Sciences, and I am glad to say that he does not teach pseudoscience."

[The Aquaria]

Greeting, Mr Premier. I am Kalme from People's Republic of the Aquaria. Taking this opportunity, I would like to ask you a few questions if you don't mind:

1. Personally, what is your opinion on the Aquaria's diplomatic policy of "Pro-Soviet Neutrality", which aims to maintain a decent and cooperative relationship with western powers including the US and France, while also keeping the alliance status with the USSR? Do you think this can be a threat of the Communist Bloc, considering this can become a departure of the proletarian front which has been under an agreed dominant leadership by the USSR?

2. Talking about unity, in name of maintaining the unity of the Communist Bloc, how will your government's policy on diplomacy differ from the changed situation during former leader Nikita Khrushchev's rule? Will this government restore the Stalinist diplomatic policy, which aims for the good of the Soviet Union yet described as invading and aggressive by foreigners, or something interesting might happen which lead to a change?

3. What is your opinion of education, between the idea of Creativity and Ideology Maintenance?

4. Do you agree that the division of Germany, despite as a penalty for the Nazi regime, is actually a dis-unification of the people there?

5. Lastly, if you don't mind, please also recommend us some brands of Vodka.

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings Kalme, I appreciate all your questions, although I would like to clarify that I am not the Premier, I was the Premier from 1953-55 but at present I am the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the General Secretary of the Party. Secondly, I would like to clarify that it appears from your questions that you believe we recently took over, whereas in reality it has been 7 years of my administration.

I am unaware of in which year did your government adopt this policy of "pro-Soviet neutrality", but I would like to say that I am opposed to it. I will speak practically here because this medium is about speaking from a Soviet perspective as well as clarifying our ideology to misguided ones. Naturally, if one of our key allies de facto downgrades our relationship by opening up with the US and France and other capitalist bourgeoisie republics, it will hurt us. It reminds me of the relationship between Titoist Yugoslavia and Khrushchevist USSR from 1955-57. Tito, being Tito, and Khrushchev being Khrushchev, naturally became close partners in their mutual hatred of Stalin, although this did not stop Tito from being a recipient of Western military aid. Such a relationship cost us dearly back then, as what is known in the West as Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" at the 20th Party Congress was leaked to the capitalist world by Tito's Yugoslavia, according to our knowledge.

Considering that Aquaria still officially is an ally, I would naturally recommend to the Soviet leadership of your age to not act irrationally and warmonger through Aquaria. However, we as the Soviet Union with our economic and military might can greatly pressurize any country of the world, and a nation especially under our brotherly orbit would feel it much greater. Hence, I would recommend that the Soviet leadership of your era be wise about such a matter so that Aquaria once again, return to our orbit. After all, relationships with capitalist countries are unadvisable, as apart from Western Europe, nobody else benefits from closeness with America.

Secondly, you have an interesting question with regards to our foreign policy. Under Khrushchev, relationships with our esteemed ally, China, almost broke apart. Not just China, I have spoken to the leaders of other nations of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, many of them felt alienated and surprised by Khrushchev's anti-Stalinism. I have, in large part, restored Stalinist diplomatic policy, as the man who ran our foreign policy back then, still, practically speaking, runs it today. He is none other than my dear friend, Comrade Vyacheslav Molotov, Premier of USSR.

However, I have a new vision as well. In 1948, when Stalin was alive, I had advocated for greater focus to Asia and Africa, rather than merely focusing on Europe. Europe, and by Europe I mean Western Europe, has been greatly weakened by WWII and the subsequent incidences such as the Suez Canal one in 1956. Instead, it has boiled down to a battle between Washington and Moscow, and I believe that if Moscow manages to capitalize on anti-colonialist sentiment in Africa and Asia, we can win this Cold War. Molotov and I aided several revolutions in Asia and Africa, including in East Bengal, Rhodesia, Ceylon, East Indies and Ghana, amongst others. I could of course explain it in great detail but time constrains me.

Your third question is interesting. Ideological purity should naturally be promoted by any Marxist-Leninist state. And I have indeed used the education system for the promotion of state ideology, as have the Americans and the British and every other sensible regime in the world. However, I consider myself a Stalinist technocrat. Promotion of ideology has never, and I repeat, never, under my watch, come at the cost of educational excellence and scientific accuracy. So, while there can be what you call, "independent thinking", I unabashedly admit that I used the education system to promote Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism.

The division of Germany was never a penalty, at least from my perspective. I would like to quote Stalin on the October Revolution Parade in 1942, during which he said that it was not the USSR's aim "to destroy Germany for it is impossible to destroy Germany", but that "the Hitlerite State can and should be destroyed". Initially, I was an opponent of the division of Germany and was of the belief that a united, neutral Germany would be more beneficial to the USSR than the West controlling most of it.

However, times have changed. Today, in 1964, I would consider someone a fool for advocating such a solution. Germany must remain divided for now, because if you see, while in West Germany, many former Hitlerites have been rehabilitated, in the German Democratic Republic, we have managed to bring down unemployment and inflation, and the East German economy has been to a great deal reconstructed. In fact, in 1962, there was a brief war between East Germany and USA, and despite its small size, the GDR managed to fare at equal positions with the American troops and humiliated America.

As to your last question, I do recommend the Smirnov (not to be confused with the Smirnoff), which was re-established in the USSR thanks to my efforts. We do have a large vodka reserve, and the Smirnov is reserved specially for foreign dignitaries."

[Sky Reavers]

"Yo' dude! This is your friednly neighbourhood semi-anarchist Liam Navarro. Wanna ask ya', about these things:

1. Ganja! Also known as weed, cannabis, marijuana! My awesomest favorite thingy! What do ya' think of it? Would ya' wanna try smokin' some, or munchin' with cookies maybe? And would ya' legalize it in your nice resort if it's illegal there? Cuz I feel, that every adult regardless of gender and sexual orientation deserves the right to enjoy this high quality stuff!"

2. Guns! What do ya' think of us allowin' folks to bear and wield arms? Be it sword, bow, pistol, SMG or plasma rifle! Ya' really should let your own workers to bear them freely, cuz ol' Marx said "Under no pretext guns and ammo should be surrendered" or something like that, and that the attempts to take em' away should be met with resistance. We took that closely to the heart, and when after the revolt some folks tried to take away ours... We said "No!" the insited... violently... so we filled em' full of lead.

3. Suvorov's military doctrine. I study the doctrine of old world warlord, who went undefeated while performin' feats of epic scale. And now, I am tryin' to adapt this doctrine to modern warfare and make our raids even more ruthless, lightning and lethal. I also try to combine it with some Sun-Tzu's principles too. What do ya' think of this doctrine, and what else should I study if I wanna improve the performance of our warriors? We are already conductin' a military reform, that emphases on military training and my overhaul includes our warriors learning basics from the courses from other military branches, so each warrior can imagine the actions of them better and thus align himself more with the combined arms.

4. How do ya' manage to cope with all these intrigues and geopolitics at the same time? Ya' rule a tremendous country. Sure I also rule a strong power, that got nukes and lots of warriors. But unlike our resort, that is built to rule itself even in case of major chain of command disruption, your's is very centralized and reliant on the leader havin' full capabilities all the time without allowin' himself a signle moment of weakness, that will be exploited by either USA, or internal rivals. I am pretty sure, that ya' keep yourself in the best shape possible. I also train, but that's for kickin' asses of assassins and loothing their corpses, or fightin' in wars.

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings Liam. To answer your first question, I would strongly urge you to stop consuming drugs and narcotic substances. Narcotics substances may provide temporary bliss, but they degrade the body when used unnecessarily and irresponsibly, which is why narcotic substances are banned in the Union, save in cases such as soldiers requiring morphine. I personally have never consumed it, although have been very close to consuming narcotics in the past, and having seen the effect on people I worked with, I have concluded that it is harmful for the human body.

There is no denying that Karl Marx did say, "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered". However, it is important to understand the context. Marx said this at a time bourgeoisie Europe was seeing the effects of egalitarian uprisings. What Marx implied by this is that in order to establish revolutionary supremacy of the proletariat, it is necessary that the proletariat not surrender his or her arms and ammunition to the bourgeoisie state. However, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is already a proletarian state. Led by the vanguard of the proletariat, the Soviet state has done for its proletariat more than the rest of the world combined. In such a scenario, it is not necessary that the proletariat bear arms and ammunition, as it could lead to anarchy and revival of Makhnoshchina, which is undesirable from a proletarian perspective.

Indeed, Suvorov had achieved great military victories for the Russian Empire and as record history stands testament, he never lost a battle. I would not recommend that soldiers learn from other military branches. I believe that rather, you should further enhance the skill development of the individual soldier in their own service branch. An infantryman, for instance, will never have to bomb Berlin or Washington, will he? A key essence to military supremacy is coordination as well. When I invaded Yugoslavia, the Soviet military budget was on its decline. Yet, we won Yugoslavia within a few months, solely because of the fact that the individual units could coordinate amongst themselves as well as with others almost fluidly, as well as the fact that our army coordinated naturally with other armed forces of the Warsaw Treaty Organization.

Your last question is interesting, especially since recently, I was shot twice in the stomach. The notion that the Union will collapse upon the death or incapacity of a "strongman" is outdated. I can understand your fears, as the state machinery came to a halt for quite a while after Stalin's death. But in my case, we have a well-defined Order of Succession, which takes into account many possibilities, even the possibility of a strike on Moscow which can eliminate the entire government as we know it. If Stalin had faced an attempt on his life and been in anesthesia for 48 hours, rioting would have overtaken the USSR. However, when I faced the attempt and had this scenario, the proceedings were although filed with shock as I have been told, yet were relatively calm as my deputy Kaganovich invoked the provisions regarding temporary incapacity and temporarily assumed acting powers to ensure that the state machinery moves on. I remember you trying to provoke rivalry between us two by fearing that under his orders, I would be killed by the doctor. But, you were wrong. I stand today as a testament of the resilience of the Soviet people, and if you find a line of succession going down to 49 people insufficient, I would refrain from comment.

So moving back to the topic, I confess I did find administration difficult in my early days as Premier from 1953-55, which is how Khrushchev initially outmanouevred me. However, once you get accustomed to the politics of it, it becomes second nature, and you shouldn't be surprised that we are a competent generation of leaders administering the USSR, as we are the ones who have seen treachery, rightist counter-revolutionaryism and most importantly, defeated the largest invasion ever to take place, done by Hitlerite Germany in 1941. Do come once to Moscow, Liam, and I would love to show you the real Soviet Union."

[Wallingtonshire]

The subject of His Most Excellent Majesty would like to ask the Dictator Malenkoff a few questions:

1) Mr. Malenkoff, you have expressed your desire to answer questions on events after your death. What do you say on the brutal invasion of the Ukraine by the Russian Federation, where Russian forces have used Soviet symbols as a cover for the invasion?

2) Mr. Malenkoff, Mr. Kalinin was the longest serving person of your post, the head of state of the USSR. The Dictator Stalin had arrested his wife during the Purges. What do you say of this?

3) Mr. Malenkoff, in 1925 Gregory Zinoviev, wrote a letter promising Soviet support for the British Labour Party. Do you confirm or deny the authenticity of this letter?

4) Mr. Malenkoff, Russian forces had once invaded Georgia, and attacked Stalin's birthplace. Do you condone this action?

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings to the Englishman here. I would like to start by saying that I am not a dictator, I am a man who has been elected by joint convocation of the Supreme Soviet by over 99% vote, which makes me more legitimate than all of your kings and Prime Ministers. To start off, I would like to state that given the facts of the situation in independent non-communist Russia and Ukraine, I am bound to condemn it. It is my view that both the non-communist regimes have played into the hands of the Western powers, and thus today both suffer while the West enjoys. As the Leader of the Soviet Union, I would like to add that our Union has always stood for something much greater than these two republics alone by themselves. Our Union is an unbreakable union of 15 great republics, bound together in the promise to all our people, all our proletariat and all our peasantry, that the Party is merely a vanguard, while all the decisions are taken keeping the interest of the proletariat and peasantry in mind. Hence, it indeed is unfortunate that today, as I speak, there is fighting going on between an independent, non-communist Russia led by a man who insulted our great leader Lenin in his rationale for war against Ukraine, and an independent, anti-communist Ukraine which has a militant hatred for communism and Bolshevism.

The arrest which you speak of, of Mrs. Kalinina, from the years 1938-46, was in accordance with due procedure. She was not living with Comrade Kalinin at that time, and he had not raised any sort of objections during her arrest. She was treated with decency and human rights, and due to the nature of the times of uncertainty back then, she was arrested to be investigated thoroughly. Her being the wife of one of the officeholders of the post I hold today does not nullify criminal procedure. It is, rather, a testament to the justice system of the Soviet Union, that even someone related to the highest of the highest offices will be investigated if need be.

I am well aware of the letter you speak of. It is the Zinoviev Letter, which created quite a fire in the British press. I can confirm that formerly a Soviet ambassador to Britain searched the archives for any record of such a letter and he could find none. The Zinoviev Letter was a ploy by the British conservatives to win the election of 1925, and none the more.

I assume you speak of the invasion of independent, anti-communist Georgia by an independent, non-communist Russia in 2008. I would say the same as I said regarding Ukraine. I still feel this was Russia and Georgia playing into the West's strategy, and evidently the independent, non-communist Russia hasn't learnt since. I cannot condone such an action, as I am a man responsible for the wellbeing of 15 republics of the Union, and I care equally about all 15 republics."

[Sky Reavers]

"Yo'! This is me again! Your friendly Overboss Liam Navarro!

1. Wanna know more about your military tactics. What mlitary doctrine do you use and why? And what do you think about our doctrine? Our doctrine involves fast and sudden attacks with the extensive use of air force. We open by launching massive missile strikes at enemy key military targets, while barrages of drones and fake missiles keep enemy anti-air systems busy and help to pinpoint their movements. After that, we launch an attack at breaches and race to pour in the enemy defenses and try to encircle their forces before they manage to organize. To keep enemy disorganized and puzzled, we use shock and awe and unpredictibility of attack directions and patterns. And compliment this with some of the guerrilla tactics too, that we used during the revolution. Sure, not all guerrilla tactics are good for offensives, but there are some, that are. In the meantime, we try to minimize harm for civilian infrastructure whenever it's impossible to avoid it entirely. That is what our Code of Honor dictates.

Our Code of Honor stricly forbids to harm an innocent and in this aspect, we enforce it among our warriors strictly. Rape and tortures are forbidden and punishment is harsh. For example, when I was a man-at-arms, I have seen one of us, who was caught committing war crimes against civilians, going through a trial. We offered some of the civilians from occupied village to volunteer as a jury in this trial. After the war criminal was found guilty, we shot him. So, while our discipline may appear messy, there are still non-negiotables... Because if we didn't embrace the Code of Honor after the revolution, we would have become... something like Merry Men.

Meanwhile, in defense, we heavily use flexible tactics, where frontlines change. With lots of ambushes and guerrilla tactics galore along the way. We try to make our enemy feel lost there. For example, sometimes they advance a bit too easy, get relaxed and then, they stumble across multiple amushes and heavier fortifications, plus creative psychologicla warfare. And when they try to retreat, we cut and encircle them. And all that enemy suffers under heavy fire.

We also try to make our units more self-sufficient and as logistic light as it's possible, plus each unit has it's own set of tactics and knows it's role and fight. We just tell them the general task and advice them!

Why do we prefere soldier's universality? Sure, specialization is nice, but a warrior should also be able to understand the battlefield from different perspectives to be able to perform better when taking initiative in battle. Look, we don't teach every grunt to pilot a VTOL, but having them to understand for example basics of artillery greatly helps them to make up ways to defend against barrages for exmple. We are less hierarchical and emphase more on self-sufficiency, so our warrior will be able to complete tasks even if officer is unavailable. War is chaos and we gotta embrace it to win. But yeah, there is a disadvantage... My new aditions ot doctrine require more training time ofr warriors, so I have them runing more drills.

Why our doctrine is a mess? Cause we are different sort of people. A rigid discipline is not for us after 25 years of oppression, which is why we had to tailor a brand new military doctrine for freedom loving people!

2. I belive, that as a leader of a country, that has been thorugh a devastating war you understand the importance of robust infrastructure, resistant to enemy attacks. What approaches do you use to make sure, that enemy will never take away your people's electricity and running water with missile strikes or sabotages? We also could share our own if you want.

3. Regarding your invitation to Moscow, I am honored by your offer and I accept it. Moreover, I would like to invite ya' to Junction, our capital and show, how our society works. Sure, it's messy, but we get the job done! "

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings to you Liam, once again. So, to explain our military doctrine, I will have to refer to my notes on the Second Liberation of Yugoslavia, in the years 1959."
*finds his notes after 20 seconds*
"So yes, as to our military doctrine, we start in a similar manner as yours, that is, by mobilising all air force and missiles available against hostile forces and destroying key military and industrial infrastructure, as opposed to civilian infrastructure. Aside from the fact that such a policy causes less damage to civilians and can lead to more civilian support, it also means that more useful infrastructure is destroyed as opposed to, say, a poor farmer's shack which has no strategic purpose.

Previously, when Comrade Stalin was alive, we used to go by the Human Waves Theory, which in brief is sending wave after wave of masses of soldiers to win a battle, and repeat this for battle after battle. Though such a doctrine is convenient for countries with huge populations like ours, after I became the Chairman, we decided to slightly reduce our emphasis on this as we are trying to improve the individual soldier's utility as well, considering that in the event the enemy manages to separate and divide large formations into tiny units of a few men at most, those men should still be able to survive and fend themselves off.

This, however, does not mean a full rejection of the theory. We utilised this to a great extent in ensuring that Tito is rapidly removed from power. Because of the sheer size of our army and the destruction of useful infrastructure, Belgrade was liberated in 3 days. Although the rest of Yugoslavia took time, we managed to ensure that within 6 months, all Titoist uprisings had ended.

To add to this point, a key part of our doctrine involves cooperation with socialist forces. There were multiple ways the liberation of Yugoslavia could have failed. Had we not acted in time, Tito could have easily fled to Greece, Italy, Turkey or even neutral Austria. If not him, other prominent leaders could have also established a government in exile. However, Hungarian armies in the north swiftly liberated the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, while Bulgarian and Albanian armies swiftly liberated Macedonia and Montenegro. We also encouraged the formation of an Italian Legion comprising largely of veteran partisans of the Communist Party of Italy, who, although were fewer compared to other armies, were still useful in securing the Yugoslav coast. I can say a great deal more on our military doctrine but due to constraints I shall elaborate till here.

As to your doctrine, well, I would not entirely approve of it for my army, however, no uniform doctrine can be used for all armies. Considering your circumstances, I would like to say that it is a loose but efficient strategy for your corps. Guerilla, in my opinion, is an overused tactic, but if it has worked efficiently in your cases, so be it.

Your second question is a very good one. If you recall during the Great Patriotic War itself we had already shifted multiple industries to the east of the Urals. Following the war, we increased the efforts, as now we have established many agricultural light industries in the Caucasus as well, and heavy industries in Siberia. In the event a Blitzkrieg should occur against our forces, with such a great magnitude that even Moscow fall to it, the government is prepared to shift itself in such a worst case scenario to one of the many Siberian cities. I cannot reveal more information considering that our enemies can use it against us, but that the Soviet Government is not dependent on one man alone. Even if an attack were to eliminate me, there are many more in the line of succession in accordance with our laws.

I too, would like to inspect your capital as the last time I saw anarchy, it was over 40 years ago in Turkestan, where Bolsheviks fought White Russians as well as Islamic legions and warlords. I would like to see if it is better than this or worse."

[Sky Reavers]

"Now, I am here again!

1. Before you visit, I must say, that we ain't a purely anarchist commonwealth. We are semi-anarchist, which means, that while there is a governmental body, there is lots of devolution and self-management involved too. Ya' see, our society is not only split by factions... It has two large informal groups - Statists and Anarchists. Our Statists belive, that a government is necessary to defend and uphold the freedoms, we have. While Anarchists belive, that our government is a transitional thing, that will be gradually reduced when the times comes, until it's fully removed. Our current state of semi-anarchy is a compromise between two ideas. Plus, our people are not fighting among eachother. All our factions share the common belief, that infighitng gonna make a weakness in our defenses, that will be exploited by the enemies. So don't expect to see a warzone in our country. What is your opinion and does USSR have any such informal divides?

2. You may give me looks like I am some silver spoon fed dude, but... What did it feel like being a peasant in these times before the revolution? And what does if feel like to you, to ascend from an oppressed peasant into a leader of a powerful country? I mean, I have been on a farm in childhood, but me and granpa more like, were shootin' empty whiskey bottles and after some time, when I learned a bit about shootin', going huntin' with ol' coach gun. Or fishin'. Besides, our farmin' equipment and techniques differed from those of old world ones. And we were independent, cuz there ain't no feudals on our lands! I have also seen action in the military and fought in many operations, so at this point we are similar."

[Technoscience Leftwing]

I have a few questions about your attitude to L. D. Trotsky's criticism of the USSR. He criticized such aspects of Soviet policy:

- The pace of collectivization was adjusted not to the needs of the economy, but to the needs of the inner-party struggle with the opposition. When Stalin needed to remove Zinoviev from power, in 1925 he teamed up with Bukharin and put forward the slogan "Get rich", suspended the pace of collectivization. Then it was necessary to remove Bukharin - in 1928 he carried out an ultra-left turn towards a policy of speedy "complete collectivization", often by force and affecting the middle peasants. Then he issued the article "Dizziness from success" and again suspended the pace of collectivization. As a result, collectivization moved in jerks, zigzags, violence instead of progressive but steady peaceful tax pressure on those who exploit wage labor in the countryside.
- The foreign policy of the Comintern was often unsuccessful: in Germany in the 1930s, the communists distanced themselves from the social democrats, and taking advantage of this disunity of the anti-fascist forces, Hitler came to power. In China, the Communists created a bloc with the bourgeois-nationalist Kuomintang Party, seeing it as an ally, but the Kuomintang leader betrayed the Communist Party and massacred the Communists. The treaty with Germany paralyzed the anti-fascist propaganda of the communist parties on the eve of the war.
- Inside the USSR, a privileged caste with special interests appeared: the party bureaucracy, which was less and less reckoning with the interests of workers and peasants, replaced the idea of world revolution with the idea of imperial geopolitics, and began to dream of turning into a class of owners, of privatizing state property and of eliminating Soviet social guarantees .
- In cultural and family policy, the humanistic emancipation promoted by the revolutionary intellectuals, Lenin's comrades-in-arms, was curtailed. and followed the lead of careerists, people from the village, who went to the ruling party for positions and ranks, but retained the birthmarks of rural backwardness: the cult of the patriarchal authoritarian family with blind subordination of the wife to her husband and younger elders, xenophobia towards foreigners and ethnic minorities, imperial Great Russian chauvinism, rehabilitation of the tsars generals, flirting with the church, suppression of modernity in favor of tradition. If the first generations of townspeople, who had just come from the countryside, liked such a traditionalist cultural policy, then the youth of the next generations, hereditary townspeople, became more and more disappointed in it. And since this culture was passed off as "socialist", disillusionment with it provoked the disillusionment of young people in socialism.

Question: was there a rational grain in Trotsky's criticism, should this criticism be taken into account?

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings once again Liam. As to your question, your commonwealth is very fortunate that the two groups choose to maintain unity or at least a veneer of it rather than indulging in vitriolic statements and a near-war situation. However, I do not think such a system will last long. After all, such informal groupings are bound to base themselves upon its leaders, and leaders are, at the end of the day, humans, who die and get replaced. It is possible that some day may come, when either the anarchist or the statist group will prefer to impose its ideology over the unity of the nation, and when that day comes, it will prove to be exceedingly sad for your Reavers.

As to the USSR, even though most or all of the party supports me, there are a few internal divides in policymaking, both on a Union-wide level as well as on individual levels in some of our Republics. On a Union-wide level, there are foreign policy divides between Andrei Gromyko, my foreign minister, backed by Byelorussian SSR, his native republic, and Russian SFSR, and Vladimir Ivashko and Vladimir Shcherbytsky, the Chairman of Ukrainian SSR and the Magistrate (presiding officer) of the Soviet of Nationalities (upper house) respectively, and both are from Ukrainian SSR. I personally favor Gromyko as he and I share a philosophy of a more Asia-centric approach, with greater alliances in Asia to ensure that Asian countries are completely aligned with us on most issues. Ivashko and Shcherbytsky are of the belief that there should be a more Cuba and South America-centric approach, as they consider it to be an untapped market. They also believe in paying close attention to Western Europe, which I agree as well, as I see potential in outfits such as the Italian Communist Party, which may win the next election. There is also a grudge in some upper middle sections of Bolshevik party officials in Russian SFSR, as some of them think I favor officials from Ukrainian SSR too much, but that is of course false as I merely believe in appointing the most competent man or woman, regardless of their nationality.

Another dispute which I can think on a republic level is in the Baltic republics, between nationalists such as Justas Paleckis, former Chairman of Lithuanian SSR, and Unionists, such as Sniechyakus, current Chief Martial Law Administrator of Lithuanian SSR. The nationalist faction used to have considerable influence, however, after I became General Secretary, I arrested their leadership for their fascist and secessionist tendencies. I also recall a dispute in Ukrainian SSR, between Ivashko and Shcherbytsky, with Ivashko being of the Kharkov Faction, a grouping of officials from Kharkov and nearby areas, while Shcherbytsky is of the Kiev Faction. Ultimately, the divide appears to be settled as Ivashko got upgraded from leader of Kharkov to leader of Ukrainian SSR, while Shcherbytsky got upgraded from leader of Ukrainian SSR to presiding officer of our upper house.

Now to your second question. I was born in late 1901, which means I was 4 when the liberals protested against the Tsar, and 15-16 when the Bourgeoisie and later Socialist Revolutions happened in 1917. I spent my childhood in what was back then Orenburg. Today officially in RSFSR, back then and even today to some extent it is considered half Kazakh and in fact, the first Muslim assembly in Russia was in Orenburg. So, it was hard work for us as our family was poor and we earned by working at the fields of this Kazakh nobleman. I forgot his name, but we people of Orenburg used to call him Mirza Baba, meaning Lord Elder. I began helping when I turned 10 in the year 1911, and worked till the October Revolution. He was a cruel man. He would pay us minimal wages and make us toil till 9 in the evening. Often my parents would starve themselves so that my sister and I would not go hungry. It was a childhood of hard labour and sorrow, until the Revolution happened. We too revolted and overthrew the Governor and noblemen, and Mirza Baba was killed by a fellow peasant while trying to flee. The next year, I joined the Bolshevik army, and then they sent me south to what was then Tashkent in Turkestan. Of course, now today, both Orenburg and Tashkent are Malenkovgrad and Malenkovabad respectively, so that is it."

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings to the fellow from Technoscience Leftwing. I have read what Lev Trotsky had said about our Union before and what you quote is naturally, a minor part as he has written quite a lot. On collectivization, it is a very debatable policy, I concede that. This is a reason why I modified Comrade Stalin's collectivization policy, to the formation of Microunits of Agro-Economic Resistance, which I have explained previously on this topic forum. The 1930s were tumultuous times after all, with political struggles being not a secret to the Western world. However, it is wrong to say that the collectivization policy was arbitrarily modified. The fact is, in order to keep with the times, policies have to be modified and tweaked to ensure that the people benefit, at the end of the day. That had always been the intention behind each and every one of our policies. If Lev Trotsky had a problem with that, I am afraid he needed to change his mindset.

*laughs* Our foreign policy is unsuccessful? Look at the USSR today. Socialism and communism are at its highest, and yet we will continue to advance! A great deal of Asia and Africa are under communist or socialist governments, along with half of Europe and some countries in South America. As to the 1930s, as I said, they were tumultuous decades. Hitler's rise to power wasn't due to disunity in socialist forces. Rather, it was because conservatives such as von Papen made pacts with Hitler and generals such as Hindenburg chose to tolerate that man's antics and violence. Ask anybody this question, and everybody will blame Paul von Hindenburg and Franz von Papen. As to China, that decision was fully of Chinese Communists, and I cannot speak for them. However, as to accusations that we "flirted" with the church, they are baseless in nature. At the time, Hitlerite Germany had launched the largest land invasion ever in the history of humankind against us. Naturally, we had to put differences aside and so, we did accept any contribution the Orthodox Church could give us. After all, if someone comes to offer you a gift, who but a fool would reject it?

The USSR is not a backward country. Might I remind you that it was us who first made International Women's Day a holiday. In fact, my own wife retained her surname after marriage, and so did my daughter, which is completely their decision. Trotsky must be under a misconception to think that the Russian chauvinism exists. Lenin did warn us about it, but ask anybody, there is no Russian chauvinism in our USSR. In fact, as I was telling Liam in the answer before this, some Russians believe I deliberately promote ethnic Ukrainians and Byelorussians over them, despite being an ethnic Russian! So, in my opinion, I think we are very progressive, as we were the first to give the proletariat what nobody else had. Our socialism was giving workers a decent life and ensuring that the worker has enough conditions to achieve self actualization. We are not a utopia, but we have achieved a lot, unlike Trotsky who merely sat in a corner of his home writing his overglorified opinions."

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Thanks for the answer.

P.S. From the Wikipedia article: Borodin, Mikhail Markovich (surname at birth - Gruzenberg; July 9, 1884, Yanovichi, Vitebsk province - May 29, 1951, Moscow) - Russian revolutionary, agent of the Comintern, Soviet statesman and public figure. ... From September 8, 1923 to July 1927 - political adviser to the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang (China). He replaced A. I. Cherepanov at this post. As an adviser and personal friend of Sun Yat-sen, he organized an alliance between the Kuomintang Party and the Chinese Communists. After the betrayal of Chiang Kai-shek in 1927, he was recalled to the Soviet Union along with his wife, two sons and Anna Strong. Arrested in 1949 during the campaign against the "cosmopolites". He died on May 29, 1951 in the Lefortovo prison during the investigation after the beatings. After Stalin's death, he was rehabilitated.

Already from these lines it is clear that the Chinese Communists in the 1920s entered into an alliance with the Kuomintang at the direction of the Comintern and Stalin (in the book "The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution" it is written in more detail.), And the xenophobic campaign of 1949 then hit the leaders of the Comintern . However, if in your alternative universe, in another dimension, the USSR and the socialist camp have survived and strengthened, you can say that the winners are not judged. Although this still does not cancel the mistakes of the 1930s.

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings to the same fellow once again. I cannot recall much regarding Borodin, but I do remember he was one of our own citizens, who acted in his private capacity as advisor to the Chinese leader Sun Yat-sen. Undoubtedly he may have thought of his actions from a Soviet perspective, but he was not directly under the orders of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, nor of the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. His arrest in 1949 was, if I recall correctly, due to his and Strong's attempt to publish material which could have led to bourgeoisie unrest in the USSR. Hence, he was arrested and no, my government nor Khrushchev's government absolved him in any way of charges against him.

As to a xenophobic campaign, I assure you that in the USSR, we uphold the equality of the citizen, irrespective of nationality. If you are under the opinion that Borodin was arrested due to his "Jewishness", let me assure you, my own deputy chairman, who is the second most powerful man in this country, is a Jew."

[Wallingtonshire]

The subject of H.M. the King would like to ask Malenkoff a few more questions:

1. Recently, in our colony, a political party by the name of the Coal Miners' Front became the largest political party in our newly formed Assembly and has formed the government with its leader, the Rt. Hon. Coleridge, becoming our first Chief Minister. This party supports semi-revolutionary socialism and syndicalism, but has firmly sworn allegiance to His Majesty King George V and to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. What is your view on this?

2. What are your views on God and religion? Since your news indicates a crackdown on the Islamic faith, are you planning a similar crackdown on Christianity?

[Stalinist Soviet Union]

"Greetings once again. I can only say that it is gladdening for your people that your colony have been granted more devolved powers with a Chief Minister and Assembly. It is also lovely to see that a syndicalist socialist has become your Chief Minister. However, I will have to wait for time to pass to examine this man's decisions and provide and accurate comment, due to lack of data. I would prefer if they were full-fledged communists and not just socialists, as they claim to be, but for all you know covertly these people may be Bolsheviks but concealing it to legally contest elections in Britain.

As to your second question, I do not profess faith in God. Neither in one God, nor in multiple Gods. I am an atheist, and although I occasionally read through my family's Ohrid Bible written in Macedonian, I do not believe in it and merely use it as a tool to analyze Christian behaviour. But let me clarify, I am not cracking down on the Islamic faith. Regarding the dissolution of the SADUM, it was as the Imams and the Mufti leading that body were promoting extremist religious rhetoric, which could have led to inter-religious clashes had I not intervened. Although we are an atheist state, all people are free to practice religion within adequate limits. I was legally a resident of Central Asia for ten years and understand how the region works, which is why I have the backing of the governments of the Central Asian republics.

We do not "crack down" on religion, including Christianity. The law provides that Christianity may be practiced by people within adequate limits, and I do not plan on changing that. We do occasionally take action against figures who bear high ranks in religious institutions, but that is solely because those figures have committed crimes which may disturb the nature of peace and law and order here."

[The Iron Khagnate]

"Greetings, Chairman Malenkov. I am Colonel Heinde, the leader of the National Defense Council of the Iron Khaganate. Our glorious hegemon, Neceptus, is sadly not with us at this time. As the current, provisional ruler of the Grand Nomadic Empire, i would like to ask you a few questions."

1- " As you know, the Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature by Stalin, collapsed after his death. This plan to reshape the steppes into its former self.. it was a herculean project that never took off. For my question, do you have any plans to combat the deterioration of the enviroment?"

2- "As for my second question, you should know how Stalin had made claims on the Kars Plateu in Turkey, which he claimed was stolen from Georgians by the Turks. These claims were later renounced after Stalin's death, of course. Do you think that the Kars Plateu belongs to the Soviet Union and Georgia, or is it too risky of a move to do so, since Turkey has joined NATO?"


3- "Now, fellow gentleman. First, i would like to congratulate you for your massive contributions to your people, and the tremendous growth your nation's economy has gotten under your leadership. How and what did you do to build a powerful economy, especially considering the massive losses the Soviet Union had due to the Second World War?"

[Republica Federal de Catalunya]

Is the Lord of the Rings banned in your time line as it was on the real URSS for most of the Cold War?

[Die Neue Kaiserreich]

Guten Tag, esteemed comrade Malenkov. I am Joseph Adam Lehmann, representative of the German Empire in our timeline’s Russian Republic. I have decided to contact you on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. My questions are as follows:


1) As you know, the modern world has been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which lasted from 2020 to 2022 and from which many timelines are still recovering. My question, and the question of the Ministry is: what would your administration do when facing such a situation?


2) In many worlds, the USSR is ultimately defeated in the Cold War. Whether it is through a violent civil war, invasion by the West and NATO or a peaceful dissolution via a coup. Do you think, Mr. Malenkov, that the USSR you rule over will meet the same fate?


3) As for my 3rd question, what do you think about the continuous expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe? Do you think Mr. Putin’s claims that he is only invading Ukraine in order to protect Russia from NATO expansion onto Russian borders is viable?

That will be all for now. Thank you for listening Mr. Malenkov.