WI: Better Soviet Union, No Cold War?

Would it be possible for a Soviet Union to exist that was, in general, "better"? By better I mean a Soviet Union with fewer economic problems, smarter leaders and no Cold War. By better I also mean possibly different leaders, maybe all the way back to someone replacing Lenin. By better I also mean sufficient public acceptance of the Soviet Union such that there are Communist Parties allowed in lots of countries and coalition governments containing Communist parties.

This implies PoD of as far back as 1917, or even further back.

I'm just asking a question, of course.

Simple answer-- the OTL Cold War happened for several reasons:

• The USSR endured foreign invasion and civil war from 1917-1922, then had trouble getting recognized until the 1930's by major world powers.
  
• Attempts by the USSR to collaborate with Western powers- UK, France, US, et al. fell on deaf ears throughout the 1930's, esp. the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, so from a Soviet perspective, the wartime alliance was strictly one of convenience until Nazi Germany was smashed.
  
• The USSR suffered a harrowing loss of military-age youth in WWII- s/t close to 1/3 of 18-40 y.o. males and 1/10 of 18-40 y/o females with 75% of European Russia a devastated ruin.
  Stalin didn't want any external powers to know how exhausted the Soviet armies and people were. Thus the insistence on buffer zones in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania.
  From a pragmatic standpoint, seeing how much trouble the Finns were, the Soviets figured why have anyone but compliant puppets next door?.

The US was calling the shots and seemed quite unaccountable and umoved by the harrowing experiences of the UK and France who'd been on the front lines since 1939, much less the biblical-plagues sufferings of the Soviets.

When the US offered Marshall Plan aid to the Soviets, it came with a lot of political strings.

So, for the tl:dr crowd:

Have the 1905 Revolution be an unequivocal victory for the Kadets and put Russia on the path of constitutional monarchy, neutering the Tsar as a political figure and purging the rot of the royal court.

Have Stolypin and other reform-minded sorts bring Russia socially into the 19th century and allow Russia to urbanize naturally instead of the haphazard breakneck nightmare-at-gunpoint Stalin's bunch did.

The economy could naturally evolve through the industrial age doing light industry and heavy industry as well as other concerns so it fits the country's real capacities, needs, and wants rather than this insane dash to utopia.

A Kadet Russia wouldn't be international pariah, it would be a vital trade partner and participant in the world order. The Tsar's Black Hundreds and other private armies would be brought to heel. The Okhrana would also have a much narrower brief.
Democracy and prosperity aren't cure alls. Many Russians would still feel like being Big Brother to various Slavic nations and peoples and playing power games with the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians.

My thought is that IF the Black Hand manages to assassinate Franz Ferdinand and IF as OTL practically shout they're Serbian agents provocateurs-- France says, "Don't throw matches and yell, "Fire!" Y'all are on your own on this one."- a democratic Russia would be backpedaling fast from trying to fight Germany and A-H on their own.

No WWI, no WWII. No Cold War.

YMMDV.

TxCoatl1970 said:

No WWI, no WWII. No Cold War.

Click to expand...

I do not believe this.
When Russia got strong it tried to dominate its neighbours:
Peter the Great, Alexander I (and pretty much all Tsars of the 18 and early 1900s), Joseph Stalin (Cold War), Vladimir Putin.

It's to big to not too, I see even a democratic Russia at odds with the US in the 1900s as Paul Kennedy puts it:

"It's clear by the late 1800's that due to their [Russia and the US] sheer size that they were destined to rule half the Earth."

bump?
filler

Neptune said:

By better I mean a Soviet Union with fewer economic problems, smarter leaders and no Cold War. By better I also mean possibly different leaders, maybe all the way back to someone replacing Lenin. By better I also mean sufficient public acceptance of the Soviet Union such that there are Communist Parties allowed in lots of countries and coalition governments containing Communist parties.

Click to expand...

Even with better leaders, the Soviet Union is never going to do very well economically. Command economies never work well, no matter who's in charge. So, the only way for the Soviet Union to be "better" is basically for it not to be the Soviet Union.

PoeFacedKilla said:

I do not believe this.
When Russia got strong it tried to dominate its neighbours:
Peter the Great, Alexander I (and pretty much all Tsars of the 18 and early 1900s), Joseph Stalin (Cold War), Vladimir Putin.

It's to big to not too, I see even a democratic Russia at odds with the US in the 1900s as Paul Kennedy puts it:

"It's clear by the late 1800's that due to their [Russia and the US] sheer size that they were destined to rule half the Earth."

Click to expand...

US and Russia were allies (or at least on friendly terms) up untill the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Why would USA care that Russia dominantes its neighbours (you said it yourself, that was the state of affairs for much of the 19th century)? Or conversly, why would Russia care about what USA did in South America?

If USA and British Empire (also big, also domineering) got along I don't see why USA would be antagonistic towards a surviving Russian Empire.

What I meant for this is basically,

Soviet Union has no Great Purge, with economy like in Gorbachev Mk II, still flying the hammer-and-sickle flag, may or may not have a sphere of influence in eastern Europe. As such, not as much absolute devastation as OTL.

As for the other two points (re: TxCoatl1970), maybe a more forgiving leader of the Soviet Union would do the trick. Someone smarter, who knows what a possible Cold War (ITTL) would do to the USSR and so decides not to risk it. At all. Along with all the unnecessary arms manufacturing and proxy wars, incl. (?) Communist China. (??)

How would such a world turn out?

A united Europe is stronger than Britain, and thus a threat to Britiain. Thus British policy for centuries was to prevent any single power dominating Europe.

A united Eurasia/Old World is stronger than the New World (controlled by the US through political/economic domination and the Rio pact). The obvious US policy hence follows, and has arguably been pursued since WW1 (opposing Kaiser's Germany, Nazi Germany, USSR, and Russia).

That said in each of these cases there were also good ideological justifications as well as realpolitik considerations, and each of these countries acted in a way that would have led others, led by the USA, to oppose them anyway.

Neptune said:

Would it be possible for a Soviet Union to exist that was, in general, "better"? By better I mean a Soviet Union with fewer economic problems, smarter leaders

Click to expand...

Yes, easily.

and no Cold War.

Click to expand...

No. The Cold War happened due to a fundamental clash of ideologies. In fact if the Soviet Union was more succesful economically it would probably mean a worse Cold War, due to increased ability to stand up to the West, less reliance on western food imports, greater fears of revolution by Western leaders and a more intense space race.

such that there are Communist Parties allowed in lots of countries and coalition governments containing Communist parties.

Click to expand...

The Soviet Union was commited to revolutionary, not democratic, communism, and strongly disliked coalition governments containing Communist parties.

The Cosmonaut Cat said:

US and Russia were allies (or at least on friendly terms) up untill the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Why would USA care that Russia dominantes its neighbours (you said it yourself, that was the state of affairs for much of the 19th century)? Or conversly, why would Russia care about what USA did in South America?

If USA and British Empire (also big, also domineering) got along I don't see why USA would be antagonistic towards a surviving Russian Empire.

Click to expand...

A cold war does not have to be between Russia and the US, that quote was just to say Russia was to big to be isolate.

Britain and Russia had been a "Great Game" for awhile, and Russia is sure to be at odds with somebody if not the whole of Europe once it becomes as strong as it's two most powerful nations.