What if the Cold War just...fizzled out?

During the 1970s, there was a body of opinion in the US and Western Europe that held that the division of the world into East and West was essentially permanent. Therefore, the goal of responisble statesmen should not be to pressure the Soviet Union or continue the nuclear arms race. Rather, the world should essentially be divided into two seperate spheres outside of which neither side would interfere. At the same time, greater integration would be fostered by technology exchanges and joint projects (predominantly space-based). It's an idea that popped up again and again, from the writings of Amaury de Riencourt , to Larry Niven's "Mote" novels, to Alan Moore's Watchmen.

Of course, the problem with this idea is that it really benefits the Soviet Union (less military competition AND free presents!) than it does the United States, Western Europe, or even "freedom" in general. However, as Mark Almond noted in his chapter in Niall Ferguson's Virtual History, most Western observers assumed much more of the Soviet Union than was actually the case.

To me at least, this suggests that such a scenario could have actually occurred. Suppose that the 1980s just saw a succession of mildly competent conservatives running the Soviet Union, fighting corruption on occassion and generally ignoring the Western arms buildup. By the time the 1990s roll around, the general impression is that Reagan's confrontational policies have failed, and that it's time to give detente another try again. Meanwhile, the continuing mess in the Middle East as caused many unwise people to suggest that a greater reliance on Soviet oil and gas exports would not only sidestep the tensions of the region and starve out the terrorists, but that it would help "build bridges" with Moscow, and thus create a peaceful world.

So, what do you guys think about this idea? I actually think it's pretty interesting, as it relies more on chance and misdirection than straight economic data or military strength.

Interesting idea. I once heard a story about Kennedy and how he was thinking of calling off the Cold War, so its not impossible.

this is the kissinger vs. strauss augument, either adhere to ideological stance in diplomacy or not

kissinger loss

Suppose that the 1980s just saw a succession of mildly competent conservatives running the Soviet Union, fighting corruption on occassion and generally ignoring the Western arms buildup.

Click to expand...

Market innefficiency and lack of innovation would still mean economic crisis. Also national and religious revolts combined with economic woes would eventuall undermine Soviet power to a degree that more succesfull states wouldn't resist exploiting the situation.

The Soviet system was based off of a "war communism" economic pattern, so they had to have an enemy of some sort to keep their economy going, but even that didn't save them.

What the Soviets should have done was starting with Khrushchev, slowly turn "war communism" into "peace communism," at the same time ignore the arms buildup in the West (but still have a deterrent), and rebuild the economy so that it could be more sustainable. Then they should have introduced a sort of "democracy Soviet-style" in the 80's, and by now the Soviet Union would still be intact, powerful, and hopefully not-so corruption ridden as it is today.

A better idea to do this might be to prevent Reagan from winning election.

@KunlunShan: What we'd need is a successor for Khrushchev who's even more "liberal", instead of a hardliner like Breshnev.

Maybe Nikolai Podgorny?

Wendell said:

A better idea to do this might be to prevent Reagan from winning election.

Click to expand...

that would be one step, but it takes two to tango... you'd need a similar development in the USSR as well... basically, you'd need to have leaders in both nations who were willing to back away from international meddling at the same time... not impossible, but unlikely...

Max Sinister said:

@KunlunShan: What we'd need is a successor for Khrushchev who's even more "liberal", instead of a hardliner like Breshnev.

Click to expand...

I agree. Brezhnev really screwed things up.

I'm not sure the Soviet system could be sustained without at least a degree of authoritarianism. In fact I'm not sure any Soviet inspired regime could.

And what do the Chinese do? A decent bit of tension in Asia and international Communism was due as much to the internal struggle between the USSR and PRC as was due to the big USSR-USA conflict. For example, the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979 probably had at least something to do with the Vietnamese (a Soviet client state) invading Cambodia and expelling the Khmer Rouge (a Chinese client) after the latter invaded the former.

I thik we still would refere to it as long as the nukes are pointed and ready and niether side would get rid of them.

KunlunShan said:

I agree. Brezhnev really screwed things up.

Click to expand...

That would be Stalin, actually.

Brezhnev may have been intelligent enough to realize that the Soviet Union, like the famous metaphorical fish, would rot unless kept frozen...and it's really hard to see the USSR democratizing without falling apart, after all the crap they'd put their minorities through. (See, Austria-Hungary, which in 1914 hadn't been committing terror-famines against it's minorities in living memory)

Bruce

You'd need changes starting from the 50s/60s at the very latest. A best-case scenario would be some sort of Stalin-offing, sometime before '46.

Dave Howery said:

that would be one step, but it takes two to tango... you'd need a similar development in the USSR as well... basically, you'd need to have leaders in both nations who were willing to back away from international meddling at the same time... not impossible, but unlikely...

Click to expand...

Perhaps if we avoid Cuba going communist? Without Cuba as a threat to provoke conflict, there's no Bay of Pigs, no Cuban Missile Crisis, and Kennedy and Khrushchev have a lot more "room" to find common ground at the negotiating table. You'd probably need to butterfly away Dallas, though, otherwise you wouldn't have enough time to enact any lasting changes.

Without a Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev will have a few more years in power as well, and there's a better chance that he'll be followed by a moderate, too.

Amerigo Vespucci said:

Perhaps if we avoid Cuba going communist? Without Cuba as a threat to provoke conflict, there's no Bay of Pigs, no Cuban Missile Crisis, and Kennedy and Khrushchev have a lot more "room" to find common ground at the negotiating table. You'd probably need to butterfly away Dallas, though, otherwise you wouldn't have enough time to enact any lasting changes.

Without a Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev will have a few more years in power as well, and there's a better chance that he'll be followed by a moderate, too.

Click to expand...

There may not be a cold war beyond 1970 if Kennedy lives beyond 1963. I think I recall reading somewhere one time that he hoped to seek more amicable relations with the Soviets in the coming years.

Wendell said:

There may not be a cold war beyond 1970 if Kennedy lives beyond 1963. I think I recall reading somewhere one time that he hoped to seek more amicable relations with the Soviets in the coming years.

Click to expand...

Vietnam is likely to mess any Detente effort up.

Bruce

B_Munro said:

Vietnam is likely to mess any Detente effort up.

Bruce

Click to expand...

Not if Kennedy pulls out and does not escalate involvement there as Johnson did IOTL.

Wendell said:

Not if Kennedy pulls out and does not escalate involvement there as Johnson did IOTL.

Click to expand...

Kennedy? "Bear any burden, meet any hardship" Kennedy? I was under the impression that the general consensus among alt-historians was that Kennedy probably would have continued to escalate: the opposite view is most popular the Martyred Saint Kennedy crowd and those who feel Oswald Did Not Act Alone, which admittedly does not necessarily invalidate the argument, but does make one a bit suspicious.

Bruce