AHC: Better 1970's for USSR

With no PoDs prior to December of 1968, how can the "Liberal" Communist faction in the Soviet Union (men like Kosygin and Podgorny) have as much influence as possible, at the expense of "Hardline" Communists like Brezhnev? (Note that having Brezhnev killed in January 1969 would be an acceptable PoD here.) More generally, how can the Soviets put their economy and political system on as secure a footing as possible by 1980, given the realm of political reality at the time? And what would be the effect of these changes?
well, if the liberal communist faction were to come into power, that could always lead to more mixed market economic policies, similar to the Chinese economy, not to mention a de-nuclearization deal between the USSR and US under carter or even ford. with a larger budget, less tensions, and an economy that was becoming more mixed, plus the fact that the Soviet Union would choose not to involve themselves in Afghanistan, it would seem that probably a few years into Gorbachev's time some of his reforms would not devastate the USSR and the USSR would be making a comeback.
 
Fair enough in general, but that doesn't mean that resource rich countries are doomed to fritter away their flush years so badly that they literally implode on themselves when the good times (or "good times") end; I mean, we're not talking about Russia winning the Cold War or anything, just reforming their economic system enough that (at minimum) they can hold together in the coming decades and hopefully still have some heft as a world power.

That's true. But, I generally hold as a starting point that the resource curse is the likely outcome and you need an explanation for something different. And in this particularly case, as James G suggested, the timing of the development of the reserves and the Arab oil crisis is particularly acute with the Soviets.

It's like asking a lottery winner to get a job and learn new skills and then having them spend all the money. It's a bad combo...

Although, there are always exceptions to the rule such as Norway, which was rich first world country from the outset. Although even First World status does not protect from the curse, as the title of Dutch Disease states...

I feel like the Nordic countries are the exception to everything. Clearly they know something about humanity that the rest of the world doesnt. :)
 
I think so. Maintaing forces is expensive, let alone the maintenance.

Plus the Soviets were reducing the CEP of their missiles.
So why this?
Year USA USSR
1974 28,298 17,385
1975 27,235 19,443
1976 26,199 21,205
1977 25,342 23,044
1978 24,424 25,393
1979 24,141 27,935
1980 23,916 30,062
1981 23,191 32,049
1982 23,091 33,952
1983 23,341 35,804
1984 23,621 37,431
1985 23,510 39,197
The U.S. had their triad: land-based missiles, sub-based missiles, and bomber-based.

The Soviets mainly just had all their eggs in the one basket of land-based, making them much more vulnerable to a first strike.
 
The U.S. had their triad: land-based missiles, sub-based missiles, and bomber-based.

The Soviets mainly just had all their eggs in the one basket of land-based, making them much more vulnerable to a first strike.

The Soviets did have Boomers, even diesel powered subs with a handful of liquid fueled IRBMs in the Sail, a horrible design, but the Sovs put safety, like 7th in priority.
They had mostly given up on Bombers, given the distance to CONUS and the strength of ADC there, bur a good portion of their stockpile was in gravity bombs and stand-off missiles
 
. . .
They [Soviets] had mostly given up on Bombers, given the distance to CONUS and the strength of ADC there, bur a good portion of their stockpile was in gravity bombs and stand-off missiles
You're at least a level ahead of where I'm at! :) if you could possibly include a link to a good news item or book, I'd appreciate it.

As an additional factor, I think with facilities in Europe, including Turkey for a time, we were physically closer to the Soviets with a quicker strike potential than they were to us. Meaning, by the "logic" of the arms race, the Soviets had to be able to absorb a first strike and still have a credible second strike.
 
Then again, US soldiers died directly at hands of Chinese soldiers in Korea. Yet Nixon the anti-Communist made rapproachment with China.
But it was in the geostrategic interest of the US to align with China (just like it was with West Germany and Japan who killed even more US soldiers) and America had (more or less) won the Korean War, not suffered national humiliation. Nor was China any realistic threat to the USA at that point in time so there was room for an unholy alliance. By contrast, USSR was a realistic threat to the USA by the 1970s, was sponsoring Cuban troops all over Africa and had humiliated the USA is South East Asia.
 
If Lin Biao could succeed with a coup around 1971, it could be a long term boost to the Soviets. A China that's moderating the excesses of the Cultural Revolution and dialing back the ideological conflict is a way to enable the repair of the larger international socialist alliance,
 
I feel like the Nordic countries are the exception to everything. Clearly they know something about humanity that the rest of the world doesnt. :)
The Nordic countries (Norway and Sweden) weren't always able to harness the resources they have now originally they were a sparse people on the freezing edge of the world. I think them developing their culture back then and slowly industrializing is the difference between them and the other resource rich nations like the aforementioned Russia, South American and Middle Eastern nations which either industrialized rapidly like Russia and the Middle Eastern nations or lacked a solid beauracracy and had rampant corruption that allowed them to flourish and be restrained like in South America.

So basically the Nordic countries being relatively stable for the last 3-400 years is what lead them to be the exception.
 
I feel like the Nordic countries are the exception to everything
So basically the Nordic countries being relatively stable for the last 3-400 years is what lead them to be the exception.
I'm not sure that the exception is that rare all you needs is competent or at least frequently peacefully replaced semi competent and you get away with it?

I'm thinking you can add to the list, GB - for its coal powered the original industrial revolution as well as USA, CAN and AUS that all have plenty of natural resource?
 
But it was in the geostrategic interest of the US to align with China (just like it was with West Germany and Japan who killed even more US soldiers) and America had (more or less) won the Korean War, not suffered national humiliation. Nor was China any realistic threat to the USA at that point in time so there was room for an unholy alliance. By contrast, USSR was a realistic threat to the USA by the 1970s, was sponsoring Cuban troops all over Africa and had humiliated the USA is South East Asia.
It certainly seems to me that this is squarely in the middle range of how such differences might be perceived. But all the same, whether something sits in a person's craw or not, usually has to do with small, glitchy reasons, like how something was said or the exact words used. For example, we humans often misread embarrassment as a shit-eating grin or something similar, and plus we often over-react to this.

Okay, why were my U.S. government officials so inactive regarding the Bengali genocide carried out by the West Pakistan government and army acting in East Pakistan in 1971? Well, the baseline is that Pakistan was an ally and that's going to carry, almost the heck with everything else. And yes, there was some direct shooting of people but a lot of the genocide was manipulating famine which was occurring anyway, which I think is the case with most genocides. And that ugly word is only applied later.

So, it would have to be an exceptionally wise and exceptionally far-seeing State Dept, or Defense Dept. official who would attempt to intervene. And even though Bengali in '71 hurts us just a few years later in reputation, if you try to do something at the time, you're not a "team player," which is how people get promoted into so-called responsible positions in the first place.

And I think similar conclusions regarding the U.S. supporting the Pinochet coup in Chile in 1973.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that the exception is that rare all you needs is competent or at least frequently peacefully replaced semi competent and you get away with it?

I'm thinking you can add to the list, GB - for its coal powered the original industrial revolution as well as USA, CAN and AUS that all have plenty of natural resource?

With GB, coal was extracted to use for industrial purposes - to convert into higher value products like textiles rather than to monetize the commodity in and of itself. That's a key distinction as it didnt crowd out industrial investment but rather was a cog in industrial development. The US has, almost from day 1, had a relatively diverse economy, particularly in the northeast. The closest proxy for the US would be slavery in antebellum south, which did exactly what the resource curse would predict, crowded out other investment.

As to Canada and Australia, the book "Why Countries Fail" suggests that the English legal system and mode of colonial development created systems focusing on developing the local economy rather than exploiting the local resources, at least in places where English settlers were a significant part of the population base. I am not sure that is an accurate explanation in general or for why Canada and Australia avoided the resource curse but it might be a starting point.

Regardless, back to the USSR, there is fairly ample evidence that the USSR used energy production to either build foreign currency reserves used for imports or to fund military spending rather than invest in broader economic development.
 
Top