Can anyone think of a cold war scenario where the west loses

In 1990, instead of the USSR going though some radical destabilization that results in their total collapse. Its the USA. NATO collapses instead of the Warsaw pact. Massive uprisings occur in western europe. Instead of East Germany collapsing and reunifying with the West. West germany collapses and Unify with the East. The USSR remains powerful and in control.

I was watching a documentary about the end of the cold war and the collapse of the USSR and the Wall going down. And I was just wondering, what if it all happened the other way. Then I was wondering what in the hell chain of events could have ever resulted in such a thing. the USSR made some critical horrible mistakes that resulted in them always being low in everything from food to resources. It was mostly kept together by force and terror. that can only continue for so long
 

Deleted member 94680

... The USSR made some critical horrible mistakes that resulted in them always being low in everything from food to resources. It was mostly kept together by force and terror. That can only continue for so long

For your TL to be possible, you would need the above quoted to happen to the USA. I don't see that as at all likely without some hell of a POD. Maybe a catestrophic mismanagement of the recovery from the Great Depression? A POD going all the way back to the 30s?
 
In 1990, instead of the USSR going though some radical destabilization that results in their total collapse. Its the USA. NATO collapses instead of the Warsaw pact. Massive uprisings occur in western europe. Instead of East Germany collapsing and reunifying with the West. West germany collapses and Unify with the East. The USSR remains powerful and in control.

I was watching a documentary about the end of the cold war and the collapse of the USSR and the Wall going down. And I was just wondering, what if it all happened the other way. Then I was wondering what in the hell chain of events could have ever resulted in such a thing. the USSR made some critical horrible mistakes that resulted in them always being low in everything from food to resources. It was mostly kept together by force and terror. that can only continue for so long
To get a collaspse of the West woukd take a few divergences, but it's definitly possible.

Have America implement the Morgenthau Plan after World War 2 and retreat into isolationism after the war, perhaps under Taft.

The US looses the moral highground from the Morgenthau plan and then retreats into isolationism at a critical moment, Korea, Taiwan and Italy fall to Communism. France becomes a fascist dictatorship and America becomes increasingly authoritarian as well during civil rights.

The USSR however starts to slowly reform after the death of Stalin, avoiding conflicts and Breznev. By the 90's NATO has evolved into a military dictatorship under the US and countries like Britain have their governments deposed for attempting to open relations with the USSR. The US has also become involved in a costly war in throughout the Middle East and is sunk deep in an economic depression caused by a zealous devotion to the Free Market.

By the 90's the starving population of West Germany overwhelm the unmotivated and depleted garrison guarding the Berlin Wall and reunite the two sides of the country. Inspired by these uprising, revolts begin to occur in other Western Europeon countries such as Spain, Portugul, France and Britain.

If these revolts reach America, parts of the nation wouldnt seceed. They have to close of a regional identity, if they did however the country might shift in a direction closer to the USSR as tgey attempt to revive their dying economy.
 
the USSR made some critical horrible mistakes that resulted in them always being low in everything from food to resources.
It's called Communism. Not really a set of avoidable mistakes, one huge mistake (or set of closely inter-connected mistakes).

To get a collaspse of the West woukd take a few divergences, but it's definitly possible.
Ok let's see... Not wanting to be too harsh, I think this is distinctly implausible.

Have America implement the Morgenthau Plan after World War 2...
Not actually possible. They might try, and give up after a few months when they realise it's impossible without becoming Nazis themselves.

...and retreat into isolationism after the war, perhaps under Taft.
Why would they? The lesson the US took (correctly) from the history of 1919-1945 is that isolationism doesn't work.

The US... retreats into isolationism at a critical moment, Korea, Taiwan and Italy fall to Communism.
You have just guaranteed that any isolationist Administration loses the next election, and is replaced by a very internationalist/ interventionist one.

France becomes a fascist dictatorship and America becomes increasingly authoritarian as well during civil rights.
Why? How? I detect the presence of handwavium.

The USSR however starts to slowly reform after the death of Stalin, avoiding conflicts and Breznev.
Why? How? If by conflicts you mean the Afghan War, it's hard to see how Moscow avoids having to intervene there at some point, given the history of the place and Moscow's assumptions about its role. Plus, Brezhnev was a symptom of the USSR's malady, not its cause.

By the 90's NATO has evolved into a military dictatorship under the US and countries like Britain have their governments deposed for attempting to open relations with the USSR.
????????

The US has also become involved in a costly war in throughout the Middle East and is sunk deep in an economic depression caused by a zealous devotion to the Free Market.
This is probably a Chat topic, but the claim that depressions are caused by 'too much free market' is dubious.

By the 90's the starving population of West Germany overwhelm the unmotivated and depleted garrison guarding the Berlin Wall and reunite the two sides of the country. Inspired by these uprising, revolts begin to occur in other Western Europeon countries such as Spain, Portugul, France and Britain.
????????

If these revolts reach America, parts of the nation wouldnt seceed. They have to close of a regional identity, if they did however the country might shift in a direction closer to the USSR as tgey attempt to revive their dying economy.
You need a whole tribe of ASBs to get to this point.
 
To get a collaspse of the West woukd take a few divergences, but it's definitly possible.

Have America implement the Morgenthau Plan after World War 2 and retreat into isolationism after the war, perhaps under Taft.

The US looses the moral highground from the Morgenthau plan and then retreats into isolationism at a critical moment, Korea, Taiwan and Italy fall to Communism. France becomes a fascist dictatorship and America becomes increasingly authoritarian as well during civil rights.

The USSR however starts to slowly reform after the death of Stalin, avoiding conflicts and Breznev. By the 90's NATO has evolved into a military dictatorship under the US and countries like Britain have their governments deposed for attempting to open relations with the USSR. The US has also become involved in a costly war in throughout the Middle East and is sunk deep in an economic depression caused by a zealous devotion to the Free Market.

By the 90's the starving population of West Germany overwhelm the unmotivated and depleted garrison guarding the Berlin Wall and reunite the two sides of the country. Inspired by these uprising, revolts begin to occur in other Western Europeon countries such as Spain, Portugul, France and Britain.

If these revolts reach America, parts of the nation wouldnt seceed. They have to close of a regional identity, if they did however the country might shift in a direction closer to the USSR as tgey attempt to revive their dying economy.

So how exactly does the U.S. retreat into Isolationism, yet NATO somehow still comes around and is somehow a military dictatorship under the U.S.? Then said isolationist U.S. gets into a fight with the Middle East? Nevermind how would the Soviet Union survive without Western Grain from the 1960s onwards, nor U.S. trade in general (The U.S. was still supplying the GAZ Factory even during the Vietnam War).
 
Last edited:
Well, there was a failed military coup in France in the 1960s by a bunch of officers angry over Algeria.
France, I might give you. (Though even there any fascist regime isn't likely to last long - too many strong counter-forces.) But my incredulity was aimed more at the idea of the USA taking an authoritarian turn for no readily apparent reason during the 50s-60s. The notion that the USA is eternally one bad election away from dictatorship is a bit too prevalent IMO.
 
The notion that the USA is eternally one bad election away from dictatorship is a bit too prevalent IMO.
So is the notion that America has an impenetrable "can't happen here" shield regarding dictatorships.

The United States is a country, and countries can fall. Americans are human beings, and human beings can be stupid and make huge mistakes. But you don't make good speeches pointing that out, do you? I grant that the US has had a good stable run but all it takes is the right person in the right circumstances and things could get bad. You don't need everyone to turn into a fascist loving psychotic... you just need enough to support the regime and the overwhelming majority to decide to keep quiet and stay low.
 
Meanwhile, per OP, I would say that you would need a POD pretty far back to make this work. The problem is the POD needed could butterfly away the Cold War if not the Soviet Union itself.
 
This has all been Interesting so far.
Ratmancampidori. I like your scenario. America going though some trouble and nearly going fascist in the 50s. Turning Nato into something horrible that crushes the nations of western europe. Something they are desperate to escape. But as another person here said, how would that even be possible? With the economic boom of the 50s and a massive war against fascism. Its hardly possible. the events happened as they happened because they were the most likely outcome.

To make anything like this even possible, something major would have to change. Perhaps the Korean war is a disaster that stuns Americans and makes them very disillusioned. It would take a lot more than that but its a start. But how? with titans like Eisenhower and MacArthur leading. Perhaps MacArthur doesnt survive world war two and a series of incompetent generals lead the troops in Korea resulting in millions dead, and a communist victory. Same for Vietnam

But something further back would have to occur in the Soviet Union for them to be successful. Stalin cant get power. He is an idiot. Troskey would have to become the leader after Lenin. He would reorganize and not make the mistakes of Stalin. He would reform the farming and food products of the soviet union where they dont always suffer food shortages and famines. (maybe but who really knows) He doesnt trust Stalin and outmaneuvers him.

But now we are recognizing the nature of the USSR and perhaps changing the entire outcome of world war two. As someone else said to me. This guy was brilliant and aggressive. He wouldnt have trusted Hitler and probably would have attacked Europe first. World war two then may have had germany and the USA against the USSR. Or there may not have been a world war two.
 
Last edited:
Well it is possible for the Soviets to beat the west it just means you need to pick the right combination of Western weakness and Soviet Strength . Now in the mid 70's the Soviet Aircraft had a very good fighting chance against the West . By the mid 80's that was gone . Also the T-62 was at least equal to an M-60 yet was inferior to the Chieftain . Now on a naval battle scale the Soviets had effective weapons that could engage US CVBG's from very long range that until AEGIS would have been hard to fight against .

My pick is 1974/75 with a Vietnam peace treaty signing turning into a verbal slinging match and followed up by a Soviet freighter loaded down with SA-2 missiles hitting an American laid mine leading to a 1 to 2 KT explosion in Haiphong harbour . and killing a few hundred advisors and diplomats .
 
Well it is possible for the Soviets to beat the west it just means you need to pick the right combination of Western weakness and Soviet Strength . Now in the mid 70's the Soviet Aircraft had a very good fighting chance against the West . By the mid 80's that was gone . Also the T-62 was at least equal to an M-60 yet was inferior to the Chieftain . Now on a naval battle scale the Soviets had effective weapons that could engage US CVBG's from very long range that until AEGIS would have been hard to fight against .

My pick is 1974/75 with a Vietnam peace treaty signing turning into a verbal slinging match and followed up by a Soviet freighter loaded down with SA-2 missiles hitting an American laid mine leading to a 1 to 2 KT explosion in Haiphong harbour . and killing a few hundred advisors and diplomats .
I think you are now talking about the Cold War going hot
 
I simply look at the weapons available and our current understanding . I think that for the Soviets to take western Europe is possible with maybe a %40 success rate . Their Mig 21 and Mig 23 force can take the fight to the F-4 , F-104 and F-5 opponents . The Mirage is a good match to the 21 and the F-1 Mirage is a good match up against the Mig 23 .At sea the F-14 is not ready and that leaves a gap in the outer ring of air defence . If the Atlantic can be made impassable for one month then the Soviets will win while the NATO forces will pull back to England if needed . Western Weapons are superior in a general sense but the numbers are purely on the Soviet side .
 
Ratmancampidori. I like your scenario. America going though some trouble and nearly going fascist in the 50s. Turning Nato into something horrible that crushes the nations of western europe. Something they are desperate to escape. But as another person here said, how would that even be possible? With the economic boom of the 50s and a massive war against fascism. Its hardly possible. the events happened as they happened because they were the most likely outcome.

To make anything like this even possible, something major would have to change. Perhaps the Korean war is a disaster that stuns Americans and makes them very disillusioned. It would take a lot more than that but its a start. But how? with titans like Eisenhower and MacArthur leading. Perhaps MacArthur doesnt survive world war two and a series of incompetent generals lead the troops in Korea resulting in millions dead, and a communist victory. Same for Vietnam

But something further back would have to occur in the Soviet Union for them to be successful. Stalin cant get power. He is an idiot. Troskey would have to become the leader after Lenin. He would reorganize and not make the mistakes of Stalin. He would reform the farming and food products of the soviet union where they dont always suffer food shortages and famines. (maybe but who really knows) He doesnt trust Stalin and outmaneuvers him.

But now we are recognizing the nature of the USSR and perhaps changing the entire outcome of world war two. As someone else said to me. This guy was brilliant and aggressive. He wouldnt have trusted Hitler and probably would have attacked Europe first. World war two then may have had germany and the USA against the USSR. Or there may not have been a world war two.
It's an extremly vauge outline at best, but I felt like avoiding any point of divergence that would butterfly World War 2 entirly so Trotsky is out.

Perhaps a solution is an earlier death of Stalin to allow reform and have someone manage to be reelected who is willing to undertake more radical reform to make sure grain numbers are accurate. Seeing as the Soviet Union was doing fairly well in the 1970's I find it hard to beleive that they couldn't have undergone market reforms similar to China and survived.

The reason why I went with the Morganthau plan(Theres been a story on the site about it's sucessful implementation) was that it would not only destroy American goodwill after World War 2 but also shock America back into isolationism under Robert Taft. If he could also get his economic policies passed that would also would be even worse, seeing as he wanted to dismantle the New Deal.

The US withdraws foreign aid and doesn't intervene abroad, allowing Italy to become Communist and South Korea to become Communist. Butterflies would then result in France becoming a dictatorship due to the Algerian Crisis or entering a civil war.

The former would be bad for the west, the latter could quite possibly finally provoke a US intervention that would set a bad example of the United States using military force to control their allies.

Is the USSR winning the Cold War difficult, yes it is but it is certainly not immpossible.
 
So how exactly does the U.S. retreat into Isolationism, yet NATO somehow still comes around and is somehow a military dictatorship under the U.S.? Then said isolationist U.S. gets into a fight with the Middle East? Nevermind how would the Soviet Union survive without Western Grain from the 1960s onwards, nor U.S. trade in general (The U.S. was still supplying the GAZ Factory even during the Vietnam War).
Assuming that this west doesn't embargo the USSR, they should be able to still get grain.

If not then the first major famine provides the motivation to launch an investigation and undergo reform once it's been proven that the planned economy is based off of false data.
 
It's called Communism. Not really a set of avoidable mistakes, one huge mistake (or set of closely inter-connected mistakes).


Ok let's see... Not wanting to be too harsh, I think this is distinctly implausible.


Not actually possible. They might try, and give up after a few months when they realise it's impossible without becoming Nazis themselves.


Why would they? The lesson the US took (correctly) from the history of 1919-1945 is that isolationism doesn't work.


You have just guaranteed that any isolationist Administration loses the next election, and is replaced by a very internationalist/ interventionist one.


Why? How? I detect the presence of handwavium.


Why? How? If by conflicts you mean the Afghan War, it's hard to see how Moscow avoids having to intervene there at some point, given the history of the place and Moscow's assumptions about its role. Plus, Brezhnev was a symptom of the USSR's malady, not its cause.


????????


This is probably a Chat topic, but the claim that depressions are caused by 'too much free market' is dubious.


????????


You need a whole tribe of ASBs to get to this point.
Regarding isolationism the US intervened in different areas of the world pre WW2 or they could have stayed out of it. If they were not in WW2 then Korea would not be a issue in an isolated US.
 
Top