USSR winning the cold war.

[seleucusVII]

Could that ever been possible?

[B_Munro]

Could that ever been possible?

The Cold War which started in the late 40's OTL? That Cold War?

With PODs that late, unlikely.

Do well enough that 2007 AD US pundits are groaning about how we are losing the cold war? Doable.

"Win" a nuclear first strike to the extent that their squalid, miserable post-war existence is better than our horrible, squalid existence? Not very likely, but possible.

Triumph of the Soviet system over most of the planet and humiliating collapse/conquest/conversion to their way of doing things on the part of the US? "Giant asteroid wipes out US" levels of improbability.

Now, if we can use pre-1945 PODs and a _different_ cold war, chances are a bit better.

If we can get the US to adopt a self-destructive totalitarian ideology of it's own, that improves the USSR's chances (KKK America?), but PODs might be required as far back as the 19th century.

If the USSR can get nukes and a delivery system before the US, things look rosier (or Redder? :D ): need at least US staying isolationist in WWII, the USSR winning and Stalin being more favorable to scientists (POD seed: Stalin the science fiction fan?)

Bruce

[M79]

Though shaky, the singular chance I see is for WWIII in 1972 when the USSR has the code books from the Pueblo for the Navy and might be able to stop our Western submarine defense strategy. Our people are tired of war and have little stomach for it from Vietnam, though I doubt if that would be enough to stop us from a response.

Otherwise, this will be tricky without a pre-1940 POD

[CCA]

Someone has to say it: Trotskyvite USSR

[B_Munro]

Someone has to say it: Trotskyvite USSR


Trotsky is overrated.

Bruce

[Wendell]

Perhaps a longer lasting detente, with massive domestic crises in the U.S. could have allowed this to occur?

[Dean_the_Young]

Perhaps a longer lasting detente, with massive domestic crises in the U.S. could have allowed this to occur?

The problem with this, though, is that the longer this happens, the better America's position. The Soviet economy will slow and weaken as more time goes by, while the US and western economies will increase is size and strength. Economically, the USSR has a machine gun to the US gatling gun.

[Mark AH]

Any cold war must escalate into a real war, before you can speak in terms like winner and loser.

[B_Munro]

Any cold war must escalate into a real war, before you can speak in terms like winner and loser.

Lesee...

USSR gone.

All the non-Russian provinces independent.

Eastern Europe free and being integrated into the EC.

Capitalism triumphant everywhere except such vestigal leftovers as North Korea.

No Looming Threat of nuclear destruction.

I think that's a pretty damn clear win for the US side.

Bruce

[TheMann]

I don't see it possible, just because of the economic problems communism inevitably creates. Communism doesn't allow for people who work harder to get ahead, so if people don't have to work hard to get what they want then they just won't do it. Productivity on most of the state-run industries in the former Soviet bloc was downright terrible, and they always lagged behind the US in technology and science. That might work if they combined Socialism with free-market economics, but under communism its impossible.

[MerryPrankster]

Suicidally-stupid leadership on the part of the US.

Think the later parts of Stirling's "The Stone Dogs."

[Glen]

Could that ever been possible?

A good start might be no Marshall Plan.

So instead of helping build up our future trade partners and bulkwark against international communism, the US doesn't make that massive investment.

The West is in a much longer economic slump after WWII, allowing more leftists to come to the fore in Western Europe. Say that there's a movement to blame the US for a lot of that due to their continued collection on war debts.

Have the West kick out the US from Europe after Stalin dies, instead embracing a sort of 'detente' with Khruschev.

This might be a start. Have the counterculture in the late 1960s in the US take a nastier, more militant turn?

[seleucusVII]

What if Soviet Union has just made all the european socialist countries just "republics " of USSR? A formal control into them, and then doing it again with China? In the beginning of its communist revolution, China was very close to the Soviets.

[M79]

I think there would be more revolts a la 1956 Hungary, especially since there was a program of Russification in the other Republics.

[Wendell]

The problem with this, though, is that the longer this happens, the better America's position. The Soviet economy will slow and weaken as more time goes by, while the US and western economies will increase is size and strength. Economically, the USSR has a machine gun to the US gatling gun.

While true, the USSR has time to catch up if the U.S. is effectively standing down, and signing arms limitations treaties regularly.

[Wendell]

I think there would be more revolts a la 1956 Hungary, especially since there was a program of Russification in the other Republics.

But will the West do anything to stop such revolts from being violently put down? Absolutely not.

[M79]

But the USSR will have more of its attention in its own backyard than it would internationally in this TL, wouldn't that have an impact?

[Wendell]

But the USSR will have more of its attention in its own backyard than it would internationally in this TL, wouldn't that have an impact?

Possibly. I think it also depends in part on who is ruling the USSR at the time ITTL.

[CCA]

Maybe if the Mensheviks win and Menshevik Trostky leads the USSR instead of the Bolsheviks we might see a more democratic prosperous USSR.

[ninebucks]

I think including all post-'45 conquered/loyal territory into the Soviet Union would be a good place to start.

And instead of having a process of Russification, how about a process that tries to create a new, uniquely Soviet national identity. Stalin started along this path, being Georgian he wasn't really one for Russian chauvanism, but after his death the Soviet Union did become much more Russian... But let's imagine if his successor is another non-Russian, they could conceive all kinds of eccentric schemes for creating a Soviet national identity, perhaps commission the creation of a Soviet conlang, based on simplified Slavic grammar and containing loanwords from every tongue under the Kremlin's gaze (German... Georgian... Tajik... Manchu...)

Unfortunately, for the Soviet citizens, the successive dictators are going to have to be a lot more irrational, and a lot more brutal. As soon as any Soviet leader allows any level of rationality to be accepted into Soviet political discourse, socialism is doomed. A successful USSR has to be all about doublethink, newspeak and thoughtcrime...

[ninebucks]

Maybe if the Mensheviks win and Menshevik Trostky leads the USSR instead of the Bolsheviks we might see a more democratic prosperous USSR.

But would a Menshevik Russia get involved in the Cold War in the first place? As I understand it the Mensheviks were more moderate, and would be less antagonistic towards the West.

[B_Munro]

We really need to establish what we mean by a Soviet victory. The mirror of OTL's US & co victory would be Communism as the predominant form of economic organization for all major industrial powers, the global military, economic, and cultural paramountacy of the USSR, and the collapse/economic implosion/disintegration of the US. It's really hard to get a Soviet victory that complete with post-WWII PODs, harder still after the Marshall plan. A isolationist US, a neutralized Europe, and a middle east full of Soviet client states is a few battles won, not the war: not as long as Capitalist countries account for most of the world's economy: not as long as the Soviet economy is incapable of economic growth save through the addition of inputs (here's an interesting article). http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html

We probably _can't_ get a Soviet system which outperforms OTL's West economically: at best we get something like OTL's China, in which case the ideological basis for the Cold War no longer exists, since the USSR is not offering a Better Way but More Of The Same. We need to cripple the competition. Earlier we had a "No Marshall Plan" suggestion, which might be a good start: Italy perhaps goes Red, and Latin-American type voodoo economics may undermine the economies of the rest and delay the "Economic Miracle" of OTL enough to allow Communism to present itself as an equal or superior system for some decades. The real problem is crippling the US: as long as the US and the largely untouched parts of the Anglosphere (Canada, Australia, etc.) remain free and capitalistic, the USSR is going to look like crap by comprison in the long run, no matter how many third world pestholes claim to be following the tenets of Marx and Lenin.

Bruce

[Hapsburg]

Maybe the USSR reforms in the 1960s or early 1970s, implementing an earlier form of Perestroika and Glasnost. A new Soviet Constitution redefines the USSR as a Social-Democratic State rather than strictly a Socialist State. Then, the USSR gives some more leeway in their economic system, like OTL China is doing. They become economically more powerful, and persist.
Also, not invading Afghanistan would certainly help. A lot.

[freivolk]

I think its still possible to come up with a POD so late like 1980 which leads to a soviet victory. Okay, I don´t talk about a reversed 1989/91 with the USA and Western Europe becoming communist till this date. But I think it´s possible that we come at the end of the eighties to a situation were the USA retreats to a "Fortress America", Western Europe accepts some kind of "finnlandisation" (including paying some kind of "tribut" to keep the soviet economy running) und the USSR is undisputed Super Power Nr. 1.

Here are some possible POD. John Paul I. lives longer. The Soviets didn´t shortly lose controll of the Afghan communists. The West German Social Democrats become the strongest Party in the 1980 election. Carter gets reelected. Labour wins the UK election in 1983/84.

Believe me, this is no "trash-the left"-scenario. It´s more the idea that well-meaning people could come to the conclusion, that if living on the brink of nuclear war would be the only way to stop a emerging soviet hegemony, then it would be better to accept this hegemony.

[Asnys]

The idea that the Soviet economy was doomed to collapse is questionable at best. People tend to forget that the USSR industrialized under communism-during World War II and immediately afterwards they enjoyed the same double-digit growth rates that China is enjoying now. It wasn't until Brezhnev came along that stagnation really set in. Now, it's very unlikely the USSR would ever be able to match the US and Western Europe in terms of economic production, but only because they had a smaller population base, not because of any flaws inherent in socialism itself.

[Max Sinister]

McCarthyism goes on longer, extends to Western Europe; every dictature is propped up, as long as they're only anti-Communist, even if they have a planned economy too. The US don't stand for liberty and democracy anymore and even less for true free market, but are seen just as pro-big business.

[Faeelin]

The idea that the Soviet economy was doomed to collapse is questionable at best. People tend to forget that the USSR industrialized under communism-during World War II and immediately afterwards they enjoyed the same double-digit growth rates that China is enjoying now. It wasn't until Brezhnev came along that stagnation really set in. Now, it's very unlikely the USSR would ever be able to match the US and Western Europe in terms of economic production, but only because they had a smaller population base, not because of any flaws inherent in socialism itself.

This seems pretty simplistic; Russia also industrialized before WWI without capitalism, and it's not like Brezhnev dramatically altered how the soviet economy was ran.

[SunilTanna]

1979 Communist radicals make an unsuccessful attempt to kill Khomeini during the Iranian revolution. Bomb making equipment is tracked back to KGB. Iranians students seize the Soviet embassy and take the diplomats hostage.

Negotiations to free the hostages fail, so in December 1979 the USSR launches a massive invasion of Iran.

23 Jan 1980: Carter announces the Carter doctrine during the state of the Union speech:

Let our position be absolutely clear: Any further attempts by any outside force to gain complete control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

1980-1982 Nevertheless Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gradually Finlandize themselves to the Soviet Union, and the oil price shoots through the roof.

Western Europe is bankrupted. Britain slashes defence spending drastically. In 1982, the much reduced Royal Navy loses a bizarre war to Argentina over some remote South Atlantic islands.

1983 Tony Benn is elected British Prime Minister of the Britain. He expels US bases. NATO begins to break up.... UK, Greece, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, have all fallen out with the US for one reason or another,

Western economies are in collapse. The USSR is getting rich on oil exports. And the Western alliance is failing.

[Asnys]

This seems pretty simplistic; Russia also industrialized before WWI without capitalism, and it's not like Brezhnev dramatically altered how the soviet economy was ran.

It is simplistic, but so are assumptions that any socialist economy is doomed.

Brezhnev didn't drastically alter how the economy was run, but he did halt the (limited) reforms that were ongoing under Kruschev, as well as allowing the black market and corruption to reach unmanageable proportions. He's certainly not solely to blame for the USSR's economic collapse, but he does bear a sizeable percentage.

Before I go any further, I'd just like to add that the above are based off of limited readings, and are susceptible to my own political biases. So if anyone with a formal background in economics cares to dispute this, I'll cede the point. Still, there seems to be a strange divide in thinking about the economy of the USSR-during WW2, it's a low-quality, high-quantity giant that the Germans unwittingly woke; but once Stalin dies, nothing can prevent the inevitable collapse.

[Wendell]

1979 Communist radicals make an unsuccessful attempt to kill Khomeini during the Iranian revolution. Bomb making equipment is tracked back to KGB. Iranians students seize the Soviet embassy and take the diplomats hostage.

Negotiations to free the hostages fail, so in December 1979 the USSR launches a massive invasion of Iran.

23 Jan 1980: Carter announces the Carter doctrine during the state of the Union speech:

Let our position be absolutely clear: Any further attempts by any outside force to gain complete control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

1980-1982 Nevertheless Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gradually Finlandize themselves to the Soviet Union, and the oil price shoots through the roof.

Western Europe is bankrupted. Britain slashes defence spending drastically. In 1982, the much reduced Royal Navy loses a bizarre war to Argentina over some remote South Atlantic islands.

1983 Tony Benn is elected British Prime Minister of the Britain. He expels US bases. NATO begins to break up.... UK, Greece, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, have all fallen out with the US for one reason or another,

Western economies are in collapse. The USSR is getting rich on oil exports. And the Western alliance is failing.

I mean, come on. Tony Benn as British PM-TONY BENN? Please.

BTW, do you see Carter being reelected?

[SunilTanna]

Healey beat Benn for the deputy leadership by only 1% in 1981, despite Foot backing Healey.

Now assume

(1) Oil price is very high, Britain's economy is wrecked from what was already a tough time.

(2) Falklands War is lost, because of deeper defence cuts in early Thatcher years (because of economic situation)

(3) Foot is discredited because he supported the Falklands War (disaster) - unlike Benn who opposed it from the start

(4) Benn therefore wins leadership of Labour

(5) More of center-right labour MPs go over to SDP. David Owen fancies himself for leader and causes splits in SDP/Liberal alliance.

(6) After Falklands, Thatcher is in untenable position. Tory grandees quietly push her out. Monetarism is seens as yesterday's idea in part because of Britain's bad situation, and in part because it's associated with Thatcher. They want a safe moderate pair of hands as leader. James Prior becomes Tory leader, and does a U-turn on economic policy. Meanwhile the Tebbits of the Tory party are snipping at and undermining Prior every chance they get.

(7) The miners go on strike in September 1982... pickets close down all coal, steel, and coal-fired electricity plants. Prior tries to stop secondary picketing, but after seeing violence on TV outside a steel works, gives up as he thinks the political costs will be too high. There are powercuts by late Winter. The economy is really in trouble now.

(8) By the spring the economy is really gone down the tubes. Prior calls an election in March.

It is

Prior (Conservative) vs Steel/Jenkins (Lib/SDP) vs Benn (Labour)

Benn is the only one with a united party.

Benn is the only one who can get the miners to immediately go back to work.

Benn is the only one who was right about the Falklands...

[SunilTanna]

Yes let's have Carter in the Whitehouse for a 2nd term.

In this timeline, there is no Iran hostage crisis. Ted Kennedy doesn't run against Carter in the primaries. Reagan's gaffes in the campaign are seen as much more significant. And Carter narrowly wins.

[Wendell]

Yes let's have Carter in the Whitehouse for a 2nd term.

In this timeline, there is no Iran hostage crisis. Ted Kennedy doesn't run against Carter in the primaries. Reagan's gaffes in the campaign are seen as much more significant. And Carter narrowly wins.

Well then, this could have massive ramifications later on. Iraq may get to invade Kuwait unchallenged, and may have done better against an Iran more openly hostile to the USSR.

The U.S. could see its core allies reduced to Canada and Islands in an near Asia. Although, maybe the U.S.-Latin America ties get strengthened?

Maybe a new "European Mutual Security Accord" is developed by the members of the European Community?

[SunilTanna]

No limits on the Sandinistas too.

The most pro-Soviet/pro-Cuban get control, and there is no US-backed opposition. Nicaragua really does become the Cuban/Soviet springboard into the Western hemisphere. Grenada Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica all fall to the communists.

South America doesn't go red, but there are super unstable military regimes [because oil price is too high wrecking their economies], and Carter is hostile to them for human rights reasons.... and instability leads to more repression, etc., By the mid 1980s, nearly all have reached an accommodation with the Soviets.

[Wendell]

No limits on the Sandinistas too.

The most pro-Soviet/pro-Cuban get control, and there is no US-backed opposition. Nicaragua really does become the Cuban/Soviet springboard into the Western hemisphere. Grenada Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica all fall to the communists.

South America doesn't go red, but there are super unstable military regimes [because oil price is too high wrecking their economies], and Carter is hostile to them for human rights reasons.... and instability leads to more repression, etc., By the mid 1980s, nearly all have reached an accommodation with the Soviets.

One thing can make it all worse: Mexican civil war.

[Faeelin]

You guys think too small. We need Communist backed Socialists taking control of Canada, leading to brutal ethnic cleansing!

(Yes, this is ASB. So, probably, is Communism rolling across Latin America).

Those who think Carter's an idiot and would lie back as Communism rolled across the Americas may want to consider that he began shipping arms to Afghanistan in 1979.

And he issued a grain embargo, cutting of exports of grain from the USA to the USSR.

But, hey! Carter, deluded fool!

Negotiations to free the hostages fail, so in December 1979 the USSR launches a massive invasion of Iran.

23 Jan 1980: Carter announces the Carter doctrine during the state of the Union speech:

Let our position be absolutely clear: Any further attempts by any outside force to gain complete control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

1980-1982 Nevertheless Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gradually Finlandize themselves to the Soviet Union, and the oil price shoots through the roof.


Umm.

Err.

The USSR immediately gets bogged down in something worse than Afghanistan, and the US supplies the Iranians with weapons, along with Iraq, where Saddam plays a role analogous to Pakistan.

I don't see why they Finlandize themselves.

Western Europe is bankrupted. Britain slashes defence spending drastically. In 1982, the much reduced Royal Navy loses a bizarre war to Argentina over some remote South Atlantic islands.


Unfortunately for the Warsaw Pact, the Canadian, American, and Australian grain embargoes cause rioting like in OTL Poland, and by 1985 the cry of Revolution once again echoes through Moscow.

[Wendell]

You guys think too small. We need Communist backed Socialists taking control of Canada, leading to brutal ethnic cleansing!

(Yes, this is ASB. So, probably, is Communism rolling across Latin America).

Those who think Carter's an idiot and would lie back as Communism rolled across the Americas may want to consider that he began shipping arms to Afghanistan in 1979.

And he issued a grain embargo, cutting of exports of grain from the USA to the USSR.

But, hey! Carter, deluded fool!
I agree that this is a bit much, but the question may be how much can he (or his successors) do? Furthermore, some of this would take years to develop.

[SunilTanna]

Yes let's have a Mexican civil war. Carter reluctantly sends US forces to prop up the Mexican government, which only enflames the civil war.

Meanwhile, Comecon is getting rich on jacked up prices for natural resources sold to Europe. The loans to Poland, Romania, etc., are practically forgiven.

The US delays and then cancels the space shuttle program, for cost reasons, during Carter's 2nd term. It never flies. Meanwhile, thanks to the Soviet economic bonanza, the Soviet space program is well-funded and accelerated. The Soviet Buran shuttle flies in 1984.

There is no victory for "marketing ideas" in the 1980s. Socialism (as in was in many countries during the 1940s - 1970s) is seen as the wave of the future.

Governments around the world look at the USSR, and see its economic success, its strong military, and its technological success (e.g. Buran)... and emulate its socialist economic programs (instead of emulating Thatcherism as in OTL).

Of course, in capitalist countries, these "socialist reforms" make things even worse. Economists argue about it, but a common consensus, is that the answer is more "socialist reforms", not less.

With their ideology considered bankrupt by many, the Republican Party's support greatly decreases in the US. In 1984 and 1988, a left-leaning Democrat (who?) is elected President. He sees his job as implementing some "socialist reforms", while retaining the US democratic system, and does so at an accelerating rate through the late 1980s.

In 1989, the President withdraws the last US forces from Mexico.

In 1990, the US's last few remaining European allies are completely economically bankrupt. The Spanish military junta (ruled since the early 1980s) are overthrown in a violent revolution. There are riots in the streets of West Germany.... which is eventually peacefully is absorbed into the GDR. etc.

Communists make a very modest impact in the 1990 US elections, a win 3 seats (2 in California, 1 in Massachusetts) in the House of Representatives.

In 1991, right-wing forces in the US attempt a military coup....

[Faeelin]

I agree that this is a bit much, but the question may be how much can he (or his successors) do? Furthermore, some of this would take years to develop.

The Grain embargo had an immediate effect OTL, when done by just America. It had an interesting effect in spurring the formation of Solidarity in Poland, and we started supplying Afghanistan almost immediately.

And, of course, 1982-1983 were years of poor harvests in the USSR OTL.

You say you want a revolution, well you know...

[SunilTanna]

In this TL, the Soviet attack on Iran is seen as justified even by many nations... it was after all to rescue hostages. Australia and Canada also see an economic opportunity, so they increase grain exports when the US imposes an embargo.

Iraq is a Soviet not a US ally. Iraq gets Arabistan from Iran.

US arms to Iran can only come in through Turkey (very mountaineous border), through Pakistan (very hostile desert border along way from anywhere), or by sea (but Soviets control the coast, and can monitor anything going through the Straits of Hormuz). The Iranian resistance is ineffective, and there are left-wing elements in the early Iranian revolution who can accommodate with a pro-Soviet regime.

As for Kuwait, Saudi, they have a massive Soviet/Iraqi army sitting on their borders. In the case of Saudi, the southern border with Yemen too. An accommodation is not such a dumb strategy. Don't forget, as late as 1987 in OTL, after the US initially refused to reflag Kuwait tankers, the Kuwaitis approached the Soviets.

[Rev Krumbum]

For the USSR to win the Cold War, I don't believe that there need be any military confrontation or decisive series of proxy wars that concluded in definative Soviet victories.

Essentially, in the OTL, the US and its allies won by outspending the Soviets in military expenditures, creating an economic instability that was untennable for a centralized and highly inflexible national economy.

In the ATL, the Soviets more or less match the per-capita defense expenditure of the United States, backfiring the American strategy. The essential task is not to outspend or outclass the US in weaponry, but to make programs such as Reagan's "Star Wars" necessary and vital, due to a perceived threat, whether or not it is real. Theoretically, a highly centralized and state-run economy should be able to meet this objective relatively easily, although this does make the assumption that no regard for the standard of living on the part of the Soviet citizenry is taken into account by Moscow. Even if we assume that the same leaders assume power, this scenerio is still tennable, although it does require a Stalinist absolutism on their part. In essance, the Soviet economy is completely war directed, on par with WWII, but it being in "peace-time".

This strategy forces the United States to spend, spend, spend on military endeavors, which may or may not be utilized. In a liberal democracy, this creates certain political complications, as the government is (or at least should be) representative of the popular will, which, seeing little practicle need for massive defensive spending, would clamour for a reduction. The Soviets, using dictatorial measures and means, would not have to answer to such demands, as dissenters could be eliminated by the traditional Stalinist means. So long as the Soviets give little regard to the livelihood of their citizenry, they come out on top. America tires of the massive defense spending by the mid to late 90's and concedes defeat through strategic military limitations. By this I mean that a Soviet invasion of the United States is rendered impotent by the threat of a massive conventional war which would reduce the global position of each nation, but the Soviet Union ultimately remains intact and functional as a geopolitical unit. Eastern Europe remains under the Soviet yoke and the United States, while still militarily strong and viable, succumbs to an economic depression which slowly wilts its economic superiority. Western Europe, seeing the frailty of the American position, still forms something similar to the European Union, but embarks on trade and economic relations with the Soviets.

Communism remains, although the hostility is somewhat lessened. The downgraded American international position leads to a political radicalization of the US, and it either becomes a semi-hostile nation or is ultimatley mired in economic stagnation.

peace,
Krumbum

[Faeelin]

In this TL, the Soviet attack on Iran is seen as justified even by many nations... it was after all to rescue hostages. Australia and Canada also see an economic opportunity, so they increase grain exports when the US imposes an embargo.

This is clearly the worse way to get hostages.

Also, you've said that a Finlandized Arabia and Kuwait are selling oil at absurdly high prices to appease the USSR; if that is true, the west will recognize it.

And respond accordingly.

Iraq is a Soviet not a US ally. Iraq gets Arabistan from Iran.


So, in the presence of a hostile, belligerent Iraq, Saudi Arabia.... finlandizes itself, rather than requesting the presence of US troops?

Herm.

US arms to Iran can only come in through Turkey (very mountaineous border), through Pakistan (very hostile desert border along way from anywhere), or by sea (but Soviets control the coast, and can monitor anything going through the Straits of Hormuz). The Iranian resistance is ineffective, and there are left-wing elements in the early Iranian revolution who can accommodate with a pro-Soviet regime.

The Iran-Iraq war seems to indicate that, if pushed, Iranians would have fought fiercely against a foreign invader. Sure, maybe the USSR can do better; then they face a huge islamist guerilla conflict that makes Pakistan look like a walk in the park.

[Berra]

A nuklear device goes of in West Germany. It looks like a accident but it could have been a Soviet sabotage. Germany turns pacifistic and expel all US forces and the Soviets are not dumb enough to attac. The USSR looks like a superpower while the US goes isolationistic.

[SunilTanna]

You need to remember that in the early part of the Afghanistan war, it was pretty one-sided - with the soviets largely winning.

The guerillas only inflicted heavy losses on the soviets, after they got advanced weapons from the US, e.g. stinger missiles, in the 2nd Reagan administration.

Whether or not the guerillas got these supplies was a close run thing: the establishment in the state department and military, didn't want to supply them. Reagan did.

It's not impossible to imagine that a more dovish administration, may take the career beaucrats' advice and not supply advanced weapons: So in this TL, the supplies to the Iranians guerrillas are the same type of stuff that the Afghan guerillas got in the first years of the Afghanistan conflict: third hand Lee Enfields from Egypt and Pakistan and such like.


As for lots of US troops turning up in Saudi Arabia: if somebody other than Bush Sr. had been in the whitehouse in 1990, would they have been certain to be sent then? Remember the whole Carter RDF idea was based on being able to intervene, even if having no bases in the region.

If necessary, maybe we could also turn up the Israel/Lebanon conflict in this TL, with the US helping Israel more openly, so US forces are extra unwelcome in Arabia.

[nunya]

Could that ever been possible?
No.Communism is a impossible system to maintain without massive doses of terror,it simply isnt natural.Its fall was inevitable.Much more predictable is a quick US defeat of communism in WW2.The US refuses to support communist movements in Asia against Japan.After the Soviets refused to acknowledge the agreement with America regarding what to do with a conquered Europe,and organized Communist governments in Eastern Europe,the US and Britain dont take it the way they did in OTL,and demand the Soviet withdrawal.Stalin refuses.The western powers attack,Berlin falls in a few weeks,Poland and Czechoslovakia in the few months,and the US invades Russia in March 1946.At this point the US simply nukes Moscow and its over.Communism falls and there never was a Cold War.
But a lot of you are probably thinking "But wait,they couldnlt have beaten them that easily!"Yes,they could.A lot of people dont realize just how badly Russia suffered in the war.15-20 million dead versus a German total of about 300,000.They "won" only because of Stalins willingless to sacrifice massive amounts of troops to push the Germans out.Also they had to adopt a "scorched earth" strategy,destroying everything in the path of Hitlers forces.The US was in nothing like that state.The economy was roaringly succesfull by this time,the US had not been attacked at all through the war.The Depression was over.The Soviets were in absolutely no condition to wage another version of this with America and England,which combinded would have brought to bear about 80% more troops than what Hitler invaded them with.lAlso about Soviet nukes...part of the reason the US decides to go to war with the Soviets was the decision to to kidnap German scientists to develop nukes,and they and Britain refuse to accept the idea of them being a nuclear power,as they did in OTL.So the scietists are killed by Allied assasins,and youve got to remember even in OTL the Russians did not have nukes until a few years after this.Anyway,a quick Soviet defeat happens,and Communism dies.The US and its allies(UK,Australia,Israel,Canada)are the only countries with nukes for many years after.NATO invades China at some point and crushes Mao,leaving a Nationalist China.

[Communist Wizard]

Um... this is a "USSR wins" thread, not "SU loses even faster". And that is a bit wanky, in favor of the Americans.

[Faeelin]

The guerillas only inflicted heavy losses on the soviets, after they got advanced weapons from the US, e.g. stinger missiles, in the 2nd Reagan administration.

Whether or not the guerillas got these supplies was a close run thing: the establishment in the state department and military, didn't want to supply them. Reagan did.

Cite please? I'm curious because the Secretary of State under Carter claims that they began the policy of shipping weapons.

So in this TL, the supplies to the Iranians guerrillas are the same type of stuff that the Afghan guerillas got in the first years of the Afghanistan conflict: third hand Lee Enfields from Egypt and Pakistan and such like.


And whatever the Iranians have on hand.

But then again, I think there's a certain amount of hagiography for Reagan in this thread. And by a certain amount I mean I'm waiting for his deification.


As for lots of US troops turning up in Saudi Arabia: if somebody other than Bush Sr. had been in the whitehouse in 1990, would they have been certain to be sent then? Remember the whole Carter RDF idea was based on being able to intervene, even if having no bases in the region.

RDF?

If necessary, maybe we could also turn up the Israel/Lebanon conflict in this TL, with the US helping Israel more openly, so US forces are extra unwelcome in Arabia.

Ah, I see.

[SunilTanna]

Yes Carter did start shipping weapons to Afghanistan, but it was limited basic supplies (like Lee Enfields). And Reagan continued the policy. Until mid 80s, when the advanced stuff got sent over. And, as I said, against professional advice from State Dept. I was reading about this quite recently, I'll have to find the book.

I think one place is probably Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.

Go to Amazon, find the book, and search within for "Lee Enfield", and even the short quotes that Amazon gives, will give you a flavor on this point

RDF = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Deployment_Forces =

These events led to President Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Carter) announcing before a television audience on 1 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_1) 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979) the existence of the Rapid Deployment Forces, or RDF. The concept was to develop forces that could operate independently, with neither forward bases nor the facilities of friendly nations; geographical areas cited as requiring such cover included Korea, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East.

[Faeelin]

Yes Carter did start shipping weapons to Afghanistan, but it was limited basic supplies (like Lee Enfields). And Reagan continued the policy. Until mid 80s, when the advanced stuff got sent over. And, as I said, against professional advice from State Dept. I was reading about this quite recently, I'll have to find the book.

Okay, so wait a minute.

Reagan carried out teh same policy until the 1980s. What's your evidence that carter wouldn't have changed his policy as well?

And maybe sooner, since he didn't cave to the Soviets like Reagan did and start selling them grain while they were in the middle of an occupation of a sovereign nation.

I guess we can't all be appeasers like him.

. The concept was to develop forces that could operate independently, with neither forward bases nor the facilities of friendly nations; geographical areas cited as requiring such cover included Korea, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East.

Ah, so Carter's administration witnessed the restructuring of America's military that continued under Reagan.

[MerryPrankster]

An Iranian guerrilla resistance would have leftover weaponry from the Iranian army, which would take a lot longer to neutralize than the Afghan army did, thus leaving more opportunities for weapons to get spread around.

[SunilTanna]

Two separate points Faeelin

1. My point isn't Carter vs. Reagan for shipping weapons to anti-communists

My point is that it took many years of aid before _advanced_ weapons were shipped, and even then, many people in the US government didn't want to send them. It isn't at all hard to imagine that a Reagan administration deciding not to ship Stingers and other advanced weapons to Afghanistan. And so, I think it isn't too hard to imagine a Carter administration not shipping advanced weapons to the Iranian resistance.


2. Yes Carter upgraded some US forces. That isn't the relevance here.

The relevance here, is that his administration's concept of the RDF, was a force without local bases in the Middle East.

So that means no US boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

[Faeelin]

Two separate points Faeelin

1. My point isn't Carter vs. Reagan for shipping weapons to anti-communists

My point is that it took many years of aid before _advanced_ weapons were shipped, and even then, many people in the US government didn't want to send them. It isn't at all hard to imagine that a Reagan administration deciding not to ship Stingers and other advanced weapons to Afghanistan. And so, I think it isn't too hard to imagine a Carter administration not shipping advanced weapons to the Iranian resistance.


But this is an aggressive USSR, which is trying to squeeze the US economically.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, the reaction is a bloody guerilla war.

The relevance here, is that his administration's concept of the RDF, was a force without local bases in the Middle East.

So that means no US boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

You're confusing plans for the worst case scenario for those that would happen.

Essentially, what you posit is this:

1) Saudi Arabia and Kuwait decide to "finlandize"(whatever that means, since Finland had a free trade agreement with the EEC since the 70s) rather than ask the US for military protection.

2) Rather than deploy military forces to the region, Carter says "No, we'd rather have the Soviets blockade our oil supply because we have a Rapid Deployment Force!"

[Wendell]

The Grain embargo had an immediate effect OTL, when done by just America. It had an interesting effect in spurring the formation of Solidarity in Poland, and we started supplying Afghanistan almost immediately.

And, of course, 1982-1983 were years of poor harvests in the USSR OTL.

You say you want a revolution, well you know...

A very valid point.

[SunilTanna]

In this TL, the Emir of Kuwait and King of KSA, can look at Vietnam and Iran, especially Iran, to see what happens to US-backed rulers when the USSR comes after them.

Now add the Kuwait/KSA aren't keen on having US forces, because US/Israel relationship.

And add that the point about the RDF: is given the right mood in the USA, and the right administration wedded to the RDF concept, and political difficulties on putting boots on the ground (which was the whole reason for the RDF concept in the first place).... I think you should be able to imagine the US state department saying "We won't put military bases in your country, but if you get into trouble we promise to send the RDF".

Which probably wouldn't be too reassuring too the Saudis/Kuwaitis, when there are a million Soviet + Iraqi troops close at hand.

So I don't think Finlandization is an impossibility in this kind of scenario.

What is Finlandization in this case? It means that KSA + Kuwait rulers stay in power and keep their political systems but accommodate the USSR with a defence relationship (military bases, defense pact, buying Soviet equipment, treaties with the USSR, etc.), media censorship, neutrality in world affairs, general helping the USSR out on economic issues, etc. Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization#Paasikivi_doctrine - "Paasikivi doctrine" and "Self-censorship and excessive Soviet adaptation"

And don't forget even without Kuwait/KSA, Iran+Iraq + other Soviet allies, + USSR itself, they would control a lot of world oil, and have a lot of clout in OPEC and OAPEC

[Faeelin]

In this TL, the Emir of Kuwait and King of KSA, can look at Vietnam and Iran, especially Iran, to see what happens to US-backed rulers when the USSR comes after them.

The students overthrew the Shah, and are still getting US weapons.

I'm gonna leave this thread. Have fun discussing a civil war in a more prosperous Mexico.