AH Challenge: Dominant USSR in 2004

[Adam Parsons]

This is another idea that's been milling about in my head, but never could get to work right.

Essentially, create a series of events, with a POD (or PODs) no earlier than 1953, that would, by 2004, place the USSR in the same position that the USA enjoys today, namely the planet's top power. However, this does not mean the entire planet is communist, just that the Soviet Union is the lone superpower. No ASBs or nuclear wars allowed.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I have a lot of TLs with a dominant Russian EMPIRE

But thats not what you're asking

Grey Wolf

 

[Straha]

henry wallace as president is a good start for this TL. Another good start is to have the reds win the battle of warsaw in 1920.

 

[Brilliantlight]

henry wallace as president is a good start for this TL. Another good start is to have the reds win the battle of warsaw in 1920.

POD no earlier then 1953 was stated in the initial post. Personally I think it is coming close to being an ASB scenario.

 

[Straha]

if I can't do it by the date specified in the first psot I try whenever until I can get it.

 

[Brilliantlight]

if I can't do it by the date specified in the first psot I try whenever until I can get it.

I see, well that would be a decent start. I take it you agree that 1953 is much too late barring an Act of God like a 1 cu mile meteor hits the US.

 

[DuQuense]

Maybe

?how about a Group of Rouge Military, pulling a multi city "Broken Arrow" on the US & GB? cira 1957-8

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Well, it matters on which viewpoint (capitalism, socialism, communism) you think would actually succeed. Considering the USSR never actually implemented anything remotely similar to true socialism or communism, I always wonder why educated people still declare that socialism/communism has failed.

How about Khruschev actually implements real socialism in the country? Rather than the period of stagnation that came with his collapse and the rise of Brezhnev, the Soviet economy and living standard would continue their upward rise until they finally surpassed the USA. With better living standards, the government can ease up on the repression of the people (since the people won't mind living in the USSR anymore). This also involves the government easing up on small businesses, and only maintaining strict control over necessities of life (power, food, water, infrastructure, automobiles, etc). Then, after Khruschev finally dies sometime during the mid-70s, lets say, the one who comes after him is a technology-advocate who adopts a system for the military that, by the 1980s, becomes the "Socialnet," linking the world together as never before. The .soc domain names become, far and away, the most popular, with the .com domain names that come with the USA's adherence to the socialnet a distant second. The socialnet soon dwarfs Hollywood as a tool of cultural propaganda, and leads to a new golden age for the USSR. The USA does not collapse in the way the USSR did (the USSR had conquered various ethnic groups, and 80 years just wasn't enough assimilation time, especially with the hardships that the people survived under), but its influence in the world drops to about the level Russia enjoys OTL. The final blow comes when France and Germany, seeking to further the EU, withdraw from NATO after public assurances by the USSR to never seek aggression towards Europe. This starts a trend, supporting both by EU advocates and the powerful Socialist and Communist parties in Europe, and by 1994, most of Europe, save Great Britain, has withdrawn from NATO and joined the EU, which is well on its way to becoming a left-leaning superstate. Meanwhile, the USSR expands the Warsaw Pact to include Cuba, and from there begins the process of inducting several new nations in Latin America, all with assurances to the US that this is not an aggressive maneuver, but rather simple expansion. Indeed, the USSR doesn't need to worry about the USA as an absolute threat anymore.

 

[DMS]

Not that hard, I don't think.

The USSR has the resources and is not far behind technologically in 1953; it needs to maintain and integrate its population and keep pace technologically. And what better to do it that good old capitalism!

1953 gives us the death of Stalin. There's no much motive for liberalization at that point but let's draw a lesson from China and have an ugly, chaotic battle for succession lasting several years as the POD. Not so outlandish, I don't think.

Domestically, Beria does not go along with Malenkov and a three-way struggle for power ensues with Khrushchev. Malenkov has the Army but the generals don't want to intervene directly. Beria has the security forces. Khrushchev has most of the Party. By themselves none can form a stable junta and none trust the others as a potential partner. New governments are erected and toppled almost monthly, along with vicious purges that discourage commitment to any individual leader. The economy is paralyzed and, by 1955, riots begin to break out.

Internationally, Eastern Europe turns to Western Europe for assistance/stability but there is no unified leadership in Moscow to offer a response. Mao goes his own way.

Seeing disaster looming, the senior Party types and military draw the same conclusion Deng Xiaoping did -- that legitimacy required an improvement in standards of living. The political struggle is suspended and a compromise technocrat is appointed as Premier with instructions to lift all boats.

OK, now I need some help. Who am I going to put in this position? Sakharov? If that sounds ridiculous, note that most of the technocrats in China's economic reform were Soviet-trained engineers.

 

[Straha]

I see, well that would be a decent start. I take it you agree that 1953 is much too late barring an Act of God like a 1 cu mile meteor hits the US.

well its possible but not likely. Eisenhowe gettign assasinated in 1954 then being beaten by stevenson in 1956 coudl help lead to this. Stevenson would probably try detente 20 years too early and REALLY mess things up. europe gets finlandized..... not a ncie earth.

 

[DMS]

Well, Knights and I had the same idea.

Fixing the broken economy. Except mine involved reference to what China actually did and Knights involved reference to "real socialism."

If someone helps me with the politics a little, I can actually tell you what the USSR should have done to improve its economy without using magic.


"How about Khruschev actually implements real socialism in the country? Rather than the period of stagnation that came with his collapse and the rise of Brezhnev, the Soviet economy and living standard would continue their upward rise until they finally surpassed the USA. "

 

[Straha]

combine the fixing the economy with the eisenhower assasination,election of stevenson in 1956 would go a logn way towards making the ATL work.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Well, I don't quite see socialism as magic. Basically encourage business at the smaller level and have the government control only major industry, while lessening government control over the people as living standards improve.

The Soviet planned economy was idiotic; they would make something a focus for five years, and then declare it a victory no matter what happened. Furthermore, plans would continue long after it became apparent that they were failures, simply because they had been introduced by respected party officials (most kolkhozi, or collectivized farms, were terrible for quite a while, but this made no difference whatsoever).

A reintroduction of NEP could easily pave the way for socialism.

 

[Straha]

this wolr would be interesting. Yes gruesome but interesting still.

 

[DMS]

thanks for the reply

We certainly agree on the OTL Soviet economy.

I'm not sure why your suggestion is "real" socialism versus the kind tried in the USSR or Sweden or former Yugoslavia. It does sound something like what the Chinese are trying now ("grasping the large, letting go of the small").

They are running into political problems concering unemployment. More philisophically, if 1950's Soviet government isn't well-suited for running small business, why is it any better at running major industry? Even if the separation can somehow be maintained, doesn't this just give the USSR some efficient industries around the same lousy core as in OTL?

 

[Brilliantlight]

We certainly agree on the OTL Soviet economy.

I'm not sure why your suggestion is "real" socialism versus the kind tried in the USSR or Sweden or former Yugoslavia. It does sound something like what the Chinese are trying now ("grasping the large, letting go of the small").

They are running into political problems concering unemployment. More philisophically, if 1950's Soviet government isn't well-suited for running small business, why is it any better at running major industry? Even if the separation can somehow be maintained, doesn't this just give the USSR some efficient industries around the same lousy core as in OTL?

These days the Chinese are about as Communist as the John Birch Society! The only reason they call themselves that instead of Nationalists is Taiwan.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Well, I call it "real" socialism because that is what socialism is: government control over major industry while leaving everything else pretty much on its own.

And besides, before Brezhnev came in, the Soviet economy was improving tremendously, and this was WITH the lousiness. The massive corruption came into being during Brezhnev, and that is what most people remember. Without that, the government can do a bangup job with the major stuff, while actually leaving enough in the hands of people to allow competition and thus to have things actually improve quickly.

And in the POD, that would pave the way for the internet (err, socialnet) to come about and thus ensure dominance. Most people vastly underestimate how much it has done for the US; for example, in Armenia, all movies that come in are translated (mostly into Russian, some into Armenian); however, all the youth know rudimentary English, thanks to the internet.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Well, I call it "real" socialism because that is what socialism is: government control over major industry while leaving everything else pretty much on its own.

And besides, before Brezhnev came in, the Soviet economy was improving tremendously, and this was WITH the lousiness. The massive corruption came into being during Brezhnev, and that is what most people remember. Without that, the government can do a bangup job with the major stuff, while actually leaving enough in the hands of people to allow competition and thus to have things actually improve quickly.

And in the POD, that would pave the way for the internet (err, socialnet) to come about and thus ensure dominance. Most people vastly underestimate how much it has done for the US; for example, in Armenia, all movies that come in are translated (mostly into Russian, some into Armenian); however, all the youth know rudimentary English, thanks to the internet.

The Soviet economy was improving tremendously largely for the same reason Germany and Japan's were, it was building back up after being bombed. You tend to have a large growth rate after a war as eveyone rebuilds to where they were.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

That's true, to an extent, but the pre-war Soviet economy didn't come close to approaching the USA's, whereas the post-war Soviet economy, up until the mid 60s, did. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it could have reached it if the backlash from the Old Guard hadn't occured.

Quite simply, the USSR has the resources, and with the kind of control that exists in that kind of government, they could have directed the resources far better than the USA can. That is why Mao railed against Khrushchev and called him a phony Communist, since his policies weren't what Stalin had liked. If his trend continued...

 

[Brilliantlight]

That's true, to an extent, but the pre-war Soviet economy didn't come close to approaching the USA's, whereas the post-war Soviet economy, up until the mid 60s, did. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it could have reached it if the backlash from the Old Guard hadn't occured.

Quite simply, the USSR has the resources, and with the kind of control that exists in that kind of government, they could have directed the resources far better than the USA can. That is why Mao railed against Khrushchev and called him a phony Communist, since his policies weren't what Stalin had liked. If his trend continued...

Hardly, ALL Comunist governments ran into trouble in the mid 1970s from the USSR to China to Poland. It took about 5 or so years to get to the point that it was clear that the governments needed to reform or collapse. As it turns out they did both. The problems with Communism are many 1) It flat out impossible to predict the supply and demand of an economy consisting of millions of people. It is WAY too chaotic 2) It gave many incentives (such as bonuses for exceeding the 5 year plan) for lying which meant even if it were possible it would go wrong simply by wrong information being put in. 3) They all made crap as it is much easier to measure quantity rather then quality. This exagerated their GDP growth as the CIA counted glass production (for example) as glass production even if it were too thin to be used for more then a year or two or so thick that there were no frames that could hold them. Both happened in RL. 4) They all were technologically backwards as using new technology would upset the 5 year plans. 5) It gave no real incentives to work hard after Stalin, who had other problems.