Isolationist USSR after WWII

[Ameck16]

prior the war Stalin espoused "socialism in one country. So WI after the war he and his successors continue that.

Say by the time they get the Nuclear Bomb and the PCR wins the Chinese civil war, the USSR deems that it is not necessary to spread communism themselves any more since they are secure.

And go full isolationist, focus long on domestic issues, this also includes not supporting any revolutionary groups or wasting their men, material and money on things outside their borders.

How would this effect the world as it becomes clear that the bear is going to sleep. How would the Americans, brits and Chinese react.

 

[twistedirregular]

You do realize that "Socialism In One Country" argued for the recently-born Soviet Union to focus on developing a strong state before going on to spread the Workers' Revolution, correct?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

You do realize that "Socialism In One Country" argued for the recently-born Soviet Union to focus on developing a strong state before going on to spread the Workers' Revolution, correct?

Not quite. It argued to focus on developing a strong state while using the opportunity to spread the Workers Revolution when doing so did not pose undue risk to the Soviet state but otherwise argued the sort of "Permanent Revolution" attributed to Trotsky was unnecessary because the Worker Revolution's victory was supposed to be inevitable anyways, so first priority should be the preservation of the Soviet state.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . How would this effect the world as it becomes clear that the bear is going to sleep. . .

I think it would have a big effect.

For starters, we in the U.S. might not so readily support the dictatorships in El Salvador and Guatemala all through the 1980s, without the easy excuse that the respective rebel armies were being supported by the Soviets.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

The Capitalists of the world do a celebratory jig as they penetrate deeply into the markets of Africa and get South America and the Middle East to chug their milkshake.

 

[John_Smith12]

No Cold War and that alone changes most the modern day. No Vietnam War, No Malaysian Emergency, No Virgin Lands Campaign, No Mujhadeen, No Jihads. Decolonisation is more effective and the post-independence colonies don't face the tragedies that saw in OTL, No Rwandan genocide, maybe gradual liberalisation of Rhodesia and South Africa, No Congo Wars or Mozambique Civil Wars.

Generally the world is better off in my opinion.

 

[Atterdag]

No Cold War and that alone changes most the modern day. No Vietnam War, No Malaysian Emergency, No Virgin Lands Campaign, No Mujhadeen, No Jihads. Decolonisation is more effective and the post-independence colonies don't face the tragedies that saw in OTL, No Rwandan genocide, maybe gradual liberalisation of Rhodesia and South Africa, No Congo Wars or Mozambique Civil Wars.

Generally the world is better off in my opinion.

There would surely be other disasters, wars and crimes against humanity.

 

[Atterdag]

I could easily see this leading to more wars in Europe, since I guess this will butterfly away the Warsaw pact. No Soviet bear lurking over the countries of eastern Europe could see a situation like the one after ww1, with nations trying to solve ethnic questions with arms time and time again.

Overall less unity in Europe as well, probably no european union.

But the Soviet union may switch place with the US in popular imagination as the country that truly defeated Germany in ww2, which lets be honest it kinda deserves.

 

[John_Smith12]

There would surely be other disasters, wars and crimes against humanity.

Maybe, but personally I don't see as many happening if there isn't a power focused on constantly stirring trouble in the Third World. As much as America is reminded of their support of tin-pot dictators in the Latin America, the White House didn't do it because they were bored and thought why not. They did it to counter-act Sovier influence. With a USSR that simply doesn't care about supporting foreign socialist governments, the USA doesn't feel the need to support banana republics that inevitably lead to genocides.

I could see the Warsaw happening but focusing on economic and diplomatic support rather than mainly military. The ECC could still happen due to the fact that Europe is broke but maybe not a EU as France can rely upon the French Union more and doesn't feel the need for a French-German alliance to try and carve out a Third Way. Actually now that I think about it, the British Commonwealth and the French Union are significantly more relevant as these states retain influence over post-colonisation Africa and Asia.

I do see atrocities occuring in China, as they're still going to ethinically wipeout the Manchus and seize Tibet. There could be ethnic conflicts in Africa due to tribal warfare, but apart from that I don't see much

 

[GeographyDude]

The Capitalists of the world do a celebratory jig . . .

And yes, if we look at the way we supported "friendly" governments in the Middle East which continued to sell oil at below-market prices till 1973, there certainly is a strong case to be made for the Mega-Corps Triumphant view of the future (or alternate past).

But just maybe . . .

If the U.S. and USSR avoid military competition, there's more competition in the economic realm on trade deals and the like, and this could end up being a sweet deal for the Third World.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

And yes, if we look at the way we supported "friendly" governments in the Middle East which continued to sell oil at below-market prices till 1973, there certainly is a strong case to be made for the Mega-Corps Triumphant view of the future (or alternate past).

But just maybe . . .

If the U.S. and USSR avoid military competition, there's more competition in the economic realm on trade deals and the like, and this could end up being a sweet deal for the Third World.

If the OP said anything other than the USSR was going full isolationist, focusing fully on long term domestic development, and weren't sending men material or money outside their border: the last two being extra important even if the US plays fully above board as that precludes forgein aid, sweetheart loans,and cheap second-hand machinery for industrialization, and newly independent African government or top-down reformist regeime looking to modernize or build a more self sufficent economy will be looking to the Western nations for seed capital at an affordable rate, than I could see that happening. But the context of an inward looking USSR pulling all her resources towards her own growth is not liable to make them an appealing partner vs. Uncle Sam

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . I do see atrocities occuring in China, as they're still going to ethinically wipeout the Manchus . . .

Which I take to show that even with the 20th century supposedly being an age of ideological conflicts, some cases of genocide are still just plain old ethnic hatreds.

And please, if you feel so moved, sketch out a timeline in which this particular slaughter either happens to a much lesser extent or not at all.

 

[jerseyguy]

Not quite. It argued to focus on developing a strong state while using the opportunity to spread the Workers Revolution when doing so did not pose undue risk to the Soviet state but otherwise argued the sort of "Permanent Revolution" attributed to Trotsky was unnecessary because the Worker Revolution's victory was supposed to be inevitable anyways, so first priority should be the preservation of the Soviet state.

Advocacy of World Revolution and isolation from world affairs are too much of contradiction for even the best mental gymnastics of Pravda writers. In the long run, there is no ideological space for socialism and capitalism to co-exist. Either the revolution triumphs and the whole world is on the path to communism, or the revolution is destroyed by the capitalists.