AHC: Stalin cou`ed in 1941, more relaxed socialism gives U.S. run for money in post-WWII world?

After the Nazis launched operation "Barbarossa" and attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Stalin really did have a breakdown for at least several hours and he stayed secluded for at least several days.
https://books.google.com/books?id=L...eality of the invasion dawned on him"&f=false

Yes, I'm familiar with the argument that people were scared shitless because of all of Stalin's purges in the late 1930s. And I'm familiar with the argument that many of the more independent-minded people had already been killed and therefore not in position to lead or even to give tacit support to a coup. But all the same, I still think we're living in the world in which the one third chance that there was not to be a coup in fact played out.

If the Soviet Union relaxes on socialism, yes, we're socialists but we don't need to be so damn doctrinaire about it, what are some ways in which you might see the post-war period playing out differently?
 
Last edited:
If you can make the Soviets pragmatic enough, the chances of a Communist China and North Korea dim. The whole reason behind the aggressive support of revolution and expansion of the Soviet sphere was fear. Engendered by the Entente following WWI, reinforced by the atrocities of WWII, the USSR wanted buffers, resources, and a standing military to avert further slaughter. If that is instead moderated (imagine the trust that could be built with Marshal aid and how positive interaction with the West could defuse the Cold War) the world would be in a much better place. The trillions wasted on nuclear stockpiles and military projects could be better invested in social programs. The military industrial complex would never be. The US would return to isolationism. As for the Third World, that is a good question.
 
The Soviet Union after WW2 was fundamentally built on the economic exploitation of outlying regions of its empire and tributary states. A more relaxed empire is only going to find its economic self contradictions defeat itself quicker.
 
. . . If that is instead moderated (imagine the trust that could be built with Marshal aid and how positive interaction with the West could defuse the Cold War) the world would be in a much better place. . .
As much as I'd like to see this, may be too idealistic. Churchill was deeply suspicious and opposed to anything 'communist.' And same thing with major strains in the U.S., even against trade union movements. Plus, regular American citizens are usually not too charitable about foreign aid. I think the quote from Truman is that he had to scare hell out of the American people in order to sell them on the idea of the Marshall Plan as it was.
 
Last edited:
The Soviet Union after WW2 was fundamentally built on the economic exploitation of outlying regions of its empire and tributary states. . .
And the sad irony is, some of my fellow citizens on the left argue that capitalism does the exactly the same thing, oil for decades and decades from the Middle East at really cheap prices, orchestrating a military coup in Guatemala for the sake of United Fruit, etc.
 
Last edited:
and so, if U.S. and USSR compete on who will be a better genuine trade partner, in a happy accident of history, a lot of countries in the third world may get very lucky. Globalization may come decades earlier, and one in which corporations are a damn sight better behaved.

Now, we could talk about a much better behaved Soviet Union, which doesn't cheat in eastern Europe. But being a saint and/or a goody-two-shoes almost causes more resentment than anything else! And, as pointed out above, the Soviets are highly motivated to wanting buffer states. So perhaps, more of a real person Soviet Union, some cheating but also some doing it right. So, some third world nations would have great trade relations, others not so much.
 
Last edited:
And the sad irony is, some of my fellow citizens on the left argue that capitalism does the exactly the same thing, oil for decades and decades from the Middle East at really cheap prices, orchestrating a military coup in Guatemala for the sake of United Fruit, etc.

And yet the West is still here the USSR is not
 
What exactly does this mean?
Primarily that the Soviets get better from the '40s forward at a good, healthy interplay between theory and practice. Which we as humans generally are not particularly good at, though we like to think we are!

But let's say, at least from time to time, the Soviets do get pretty good at asking if something is a good idea and whether it seems to be working, not just whether it accords with some pristine theory.
 
padd-k0cB--621x414@LiveMint.jpg


https://www.livemint.com/Politics/e...ital-to-usher-in-second-green-revolution.html

If U.S. and Soviets compete much more about offering far more open and fair trade deals to third world nations, globalization may come before the Green Revolution. And that may be a significant difference in order from OTL which might play out in a number of different ways.

An academic source different from above dates the Green Revolution from 1966 to 1985.
 
Primarily that the Soviets get better from the '40s forward at a good, healthy interplay between theory and practice. Which we as humans generally are not particularly good at, though we like to think we are!

But let's say, at least from time to time, the Soviets do get pretty good at asking if something is a good idea and whether it seems to be working, not just whether it accords with some pristine theory.

So basically you're asking for a Social Democracy USSR as opposed to a Socialist USSR? In that event, the PoD you'd want is back in the Russian Republic/Revolution era, it's far too late by 1940/1941.
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-12302-8.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2V6gjbf6D48apApuGSRafS

' . . . the first GR period as 1966–1985. . . '


' . . . neither private firms nor national governments had sufficient incentive to invest in all of the research and development of such international public goods. . . '


' . . . early successes with wheat at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) in Mexico and rice at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, . . . '

This is different than the usual view of the Green Revolution which generally focuses on the great man theory of history, particularly on Norm Borlaug. And the irony is, he's underappreciated, did great stuff, and should be admired! :)

All the same, this view is focusing on the international collaboration to quite literally do the seed work, as well as techniques on fertilizer, irrigation, pest control, and maybe even, timely market information.
 
Regarding resource extraction from the third world . . . well, we wouldn't want to say someone's bank robbery was okay just because they hadn't been caught ;)

Uh huh well if the bank robber hasn't been caught after three centuries I would advise you just to give it up and focus on something more useful
 
No, still socialist, maybe even experimenting with labor union control of some industries. But far more pragmatic and focusing on timely numbers on what's working.

Keeping the NEP around is not Socialist; it's effectively a mixed economy at that point. You're also presuming pragmatism on the issue, when the only time this was really shown by Soviet leaders was at the end of the USSR. The current crop of leaders are largely Stalinists, and thus not the type you are looking for.
 
Top