AHC: The United States and the Soviet Union both collapse

It's difficult to have the world be similar enough for there to be a Cold War between the US and the USSR and have both of them collapse at the end of it. Maybe if you can exacerbate conditions during the Great depression to the point where a Second American Civil War occurs in the 1930s and the US crushes the communists and becomes a hard right authoritarian dictatorship you could see something along those lines, but that's outside of the parameters of the OP
 
Last edited:
How about this? For whatever reason, no New Deal happens, and the US elects a President who only makes things worse. Thus eventually leads to a mass public uprising in the spirit of 1789 France and 1917 Russia. You end up with a Communist or Socialist US.

An alternate version of World War II happens, but takes a bit longer to finish due to US economic inefficiency. It could well last up to 1950. Nukes come later than they did OTL. An alternative Cold War results similar to the Soviet-Chinese dispute, where the US and Soviet Union each argue over whose version if Socialism/Communism is best.

The Soviet Union falls first, but the US also stagnated, and a dire economic situation, up to a possible economic crash, forces capitalist reforms.
The OP stipulated after September 2, 1945, so this is out...
 
he OP stipulated after September 2, 1945, so this is out...

Funny enough, this is also the date where Vietnamese declared their independence from France and Japan. Coincident?

Anyhow, for the USSR to collapse, just follow the OTL. And because this is AH, we can spice it up with some extra problems (may be making Gorbachev and Yelstin even more incompetent).

For the USA, the best original cause I can think of is racism, may be coupling with the atheism vs theism (in the guise of science vs religion). The conflicts require some minor changes during WW2-era and then extra spices during 50s and later to have it blow up in USA's face. I'm not well-versed enough in USA history to think of anything.
 
Here's one...

Goldwater runs in 68 rather than 64. He beats LBJ. There is no US rapprochement with China.

In 69 or 70 the Sino-Soviet border conflict boils over.

Goldwater takes a different tack than Nixon - sit gack and let the commies destroy each other.

The world learns the globally negative effects of a regional nuclear war. (Note - this skates on the OP by being a regional and NOT a *global* nuclear war.)

The Soviet first strike employs enough weapons to damage the ozone layer globally and cause a significant global cooling trend.
 
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make the United States and the Soviet Union collapse at the end of the Cold War.

One of the hard things here is to get both to collapse at the same time when the cold war ends... Maybe we need a longer cold war?

Say the Soviets are able to reform a bit in the 80s, but aren't able to make a good ideological case for their reforms, meaning more and more people will be questioning the hypocrisy of the system even as dissatisfaction with the economy will be reduced.

Meanwhile, as the stronger Soviets launch a successful Polyus battle station test article in 88 or so, both sides commit to a terror-driven militarization of space at ruinous cost and dubious utility. Eventually the US has something like the 2008 banking crisis happens (pretty likely if there's been anything like the 80s banking reforms of otl) and both superpowers are badly hit by the economic collapse (these Soviets are more involved in world trade, just like Putin's Russia), the ruling ideologies reach a crisis in confidence and the strain of 20 years of Star Wars in both economic and psychological terms means both sides have millions of people from the grass roots to the halls of power who thing that dangerously radical action is required. By 2015, both have fallen, different factions of reformers blaming each-other and China inherits the earth.

fasquardon
 
Here's one...

Goldwater runs in 68 rather than 64. He beats LBJ. There is no US rapprochement with China.

In 69 or 70 the Sino-Soviet border conflict boils over.

Goldwater takes a different tack than Nixon - sit gack and let the commies destroy each other.

The world learns the globally negative effects of a regional nuclear war. (Note - this skates on the OP by being a regional and NOT a *global* nuclear war.)

The Soviet first strike employs enough weapons to damage the ozone layer globally and cause a significant global cooling trend.
The Soviets are not going to blow their arsenal on China and expose themselves to destruction by the U.S. in so doing.
 
How about this? For whatever reason, no New Deal happens, and the US elects a President who only makes things worse. Thus eventually leads to a mass public uprising in the spirit of 1789 France and 1917 Russia. You end up with a Communist or Socialist US.

An alternate version of World War II happens, but takes a bit longer to finish due to US economic inefficiency. It could well last up to 1950. Nukes come later than they did OTL. An alternative Cold War results similar to the Soviet-Chinese dispute, where the US and Soviet Union each argue over whose version if Socialism/Communism is best.

The Soviet Union falls first, but the US also stagnated, and a dire economic situation, up to a possible economic crash, forces capitalist reforms.

I quite like this idea.
 
You could also have some kind of US or Soviet bioweapon inexplicably get released into the general public, and cause the governments to collapse from social disorder following a mass pandemic. Or, some other disease/whatever that leads to mass crop failures and wrecks the US ag economy while food prices skyrocket. I don't really know how that undermines the USSR though other than losing food exports that were on and off embargoed anyway.
 
For the USA, the best original cause I can think of is racism, may be coupling with the atheism vs theism (in the guise of science vs religion). The conflicts require some minor changes during WW2-era and then extra spices during 50s and later to have it blow up in USA's face. I'm not well-versed enough in USA history to think of anything.

I think you probably need a POD earlier than 1945 for that, but I don’t find it hard to imagine that the way harsher suppression of blacks following the Civil War results in a protracted race war in 1950s and 60s. By the time its all over nobody on either side is willing to live in the same country as “those people” and the result is that the United States is broken apart, probably into half a dozen regional blocks.
 
I think you probably need a POD earlier than 1945 for that, but I don’t find it hard to imagine that the way harsher suppression of blacks following the Civil War results in a protracted race war in 1950s and 60s. By the time its all over nobody on either side is willing to live in the same country as “those people” and the result is that the United States is broken apart, probably into half a dozen regional blocks.
Selma Massacre came close, with a POD of 1965.
 
The Chinese argue the US has effectively collapsed and the 21st Century is theirs. Its just the old edifice is still standing, but rotten & hollow inside. The streets inhabited by drug addicts, millions without employment, the remnants of the middle-class barricaded in little enclaves, no effective public healthcare, absurdly incompetent politicians at the top, bloated rich sucking away the remaining wealth... I'll leave others to judge how accurate that PoV is.
They have a point to some extent, and, I don't want to get too political, but it is at least plausible to assess the Trump administration as sorta proving the point. Whatever one's judgement on Trump and his cabinet may be politically, it's hard to contest that he managed to greatly reduce the global appreciation of American leadership, even in traditionally very friendly countries. In the global media, they tend to project an image of gross incompetence, regardless of its accuracy.
Nonetheless, the United States are not collapsing (yet). There is certainly a relative decline, a host of social problems that may be seen as signs of worse things coming, and arguably a less than optimal political leadership handling both. But the US are still a very, very big global actor, in political and economical terms, and certainly still the largest military power on the planet by far (they are also outspending the rest of the planet on military things by HUGE margins, though this is not necessarily a signal of a healthy system, well, easily the opposite). The system may be regarded as rotten (well, that was the very premise of the Trump campaign) but it may not be irretrievable. And it has not collapsed so far.
 
Well, it could be argued that one thing driving the breakup of the Soviet Union was indeed the union construct with individual national republics clamouring for independence. I mean why would e.g. the Estonian SSR not seek independence at the earliest opportunity given that the general sentiment was that they were invaded and occupied by the Russian dominated USSR?

Thus, in order for something similar to happen to the United States, you would need to have very strong independence movements in several states, maybe in combination with a corrupt and oppressive central regime. The idea of the US going communist in the 1920-1930's isn't actually a bad way to get there, though I guess a fascist movement could work as well, especially one that would emphasize the superiority of one region of the US over others. Changes in migration patterns leading to stronger regional identities or earlier attempts at statehood, like e.g. an independent Deseret or California having a spell as an independent state like Texas before joining the USA would also be helpful, but note here that we are talking about PODs in the 1800's.

I honestly find it difficult to engineer a breakup of the USA with a POD after September 1945 before 1989, because, beyond a general social malaise / economic stagnation, you would also need a weakening of the central authority and a regional drive for independence. Especially the last is difficult to do on short notice.

Nationalism operated as a huge centrifugal force in the SU only in the Baltics and, to some degree, in the Caucasus (esp. Georgia, less so in Armenia and Azerbaijan). There was only limited public will for independence in Ukraine and Moldova, and even less in Belarus and Central Asia. Local elites hijacked the crisis to create personal fiefs, an undertaking that was greatly eased by the existence of separate ethnic identities in the titular republics (which in turn opened the minorities Pandora's Box that keeps producing localized nastiness to this day) but it is conceivable that cultural differences in the US might be expolited the same way if things really turn for the worse. However, most Americans tend to share a national sentiment which would make a Soviet-style breakup culturally harder.
 
What about a longer Vietnam war going right after onto an Afghan war being played harder by the American.
No escalation through tacit agreement, like the colonial wars of the XIXth century or Syria right now (as they're not fighting, just backing another faction)

From there, you get economic collapse of the SU and strong Cesarism in the US amidst Civil Rights movement
 

samcster94

Banned
Can this outcome lead to a "less bad" outcome like an EEC/EU(the next closest thing to the U.S.) dominated world??? States seceding would definitely lead to some weird stuff happening.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I have no doubt this will happen to some degree since the US has ceded it's world leadership position unnecessarily (Thanks, Trump!). We're moving towards a multi-polar world.
Please refrain from current political commentary outside of Chat.
 
A worse Vietnam War for the United States that leads to the U.S. mainland being attacked in some way without an effective way to counter without going nuclear could do it.
 
Top