Challenge: Long-lasting, friendly U.S.-Soviet Alliance

With the latest possible POD, create a time period lasting at least 25 years in which the US and Soviet Union view each other as strong, ultimately trustworthy allies with minimal geopolitical rivalry.

The US must remain a free market country and the Soviets cannot lose to the Germans.
 
China becomes a global power a generation or two earlier and the US and USSR realign in the face of China claiming its place at the great power table?
 
I meant this for another thread entirely, but then I got mixed up and somehow wrote it here instead. Fortunately, it works here just as well, so I'm leaving it.


With alternate leadership of the USSR between Lenin's death and the conclusion of the war to crush the Third Reich, I'd like to think circumstances might leave Soviet leaders open to making a settlement treaty with the Western Allies and sticking to it. Surely the Russians know that the Poles are going to be a pain to keep down under their thumb. If they can have plausible guarantees in good faith from the W-Allies that no forces will be mustered against them on their borders, perhaps they can largely dispense with hostile occupation, not only of Poland but other nations.

With such a scrupulous ATL leadership switched into OTL, I don't doubt Hitler would behave as he did OTL and this USSR faces another Barbarossa. An eventually triumphant Red Army steamrollering back west will of necessity have to occupy some zones anyway; Germany itself can hardly be trusted for instance, especially not if the Allies rip off territories to reward other neighboring nations like Poland and expel the Germans from these grants into a reduced Germany or fragmented set of small German states. I'd think maybe a workable procedure would be if all powers in the Alliance retain rights to small scattered bases in all liberated territories, and the right of inspectors to rove around and investigate without any check on them. With Eastern European states hosting small bases of the Western powers, and the western states having token Soviet bases scattered there too, maintaining armaments at low levels in the entire swath of intervening territory shouldn't be too hard.

Even if it were Stalin accepting and keeping these conditions, I don't believe it would mean that one fine day in the 1950s or early '60s, he or one of his successors would come sweeping in vast hordes like Mongols out of the USSR near-unopposed. The other two Great Powers never occupied by Hitler would have the same rights to arm as the USSR does, and if they aren't satisfied the Russians are keeping their force levels within reason they can can escalate themselves. The Communists OTL tended to be cautious and dilatory about starting invasions and if the West doesn't move on them, I don't think they'll move on the West.

If this Utopian plan of mine could work, Poland would be better off than Findlandized. She'd just be restricted from developing a big military or offering to host one, but otherwise free to be as reactionary as she likes.

I even wonder if Stalin himself could be persuaded to take such a deal. Probably not because he insisted on complete control wherever he could get it , and would worry about the subversive effect on his own Russians of sharing countries with contingents of western troops, in the matrix of nation free to express its opinions, if only nonviolently. Too many Soviet citizens might hear and learn the wrong things, or get dangerous ideas...
 
Last edited:
When Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, in Operation Barbarossa, Stalin at first ordered Soviet military units not to fight back hoping upon hope that it was all a mistake. Yes, really. He was hoping Nazi military commanders were acting on their own. This order of his not to fight back perhaps lasted several hours.

Then Stalin had some kind of mental breakdown lasting at least a couple of days. He withdrew away from Moscow to some other village/city. In fact, when members of the Politburo came to his location, he at first thought he was going to be arrested.

We have discussed this before here at Alt History and have respectful differences of opinion.

I generally think it was a pretty damn good opportunity for a military coup.
 
Easy. If the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed under Gorbachev's reforms from 1985-91 and instead survived, this might have well been possible from 1985 until now (the OP did say the latest possible POD).
 
Last edited:
Easy. If the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed under Gorbachev's reforms from 1985-91 and instead survived, this might have well been possible from 1985 until now (the OP did say the latest possible POD).

I'm not sure about that. While I can see Gorbachev being open to allying with the US, I cannot imagine anyone in the US being open to allying with the "evil empire".

I think the most important requirement to forge a Soviet-American alliance that lasts is a lasting enemy that threatens them both. In order of plausibility I can think of:

*The British Empire (perhaps even one allied to a Fascist Germany, with the US, USSR and France forming the opposing alliance - obviously the PoD would need to be in the 1920s or 1930s)
*China (maybe Mao is smarter on the economy and China starts growing faster earlier but still has the obnoxious Maoist ideology to push the US and USSR together)
*The Japanese Empire (obviously, requires a PoD in 1940 or '41 at the latest to keep Japan out of WW1)

fasquardon
 
With alternate leadership of the USSR between Lenin's death and the conclusion of the war to crush the Third Reich, I'd like to think circumstances might leave Soviet leaders open to making a settlement treaty with the Western Allies and sticking to it. Surely the Russians know that the Poles are going to be a pain to keep down under their thumb. If they can have plausible guarantees in good faith from the W-Allies that no forces will be mustered against them on their borders, perhaps they can largely dispense with hostile occupation, not only of Poland but other nations.

With such a scrupulous ATL leadership switched into OTL, I don't doubt Hitler would behave as he did OTL and this USSR faces another Barbarossa. An eventually triumphant Red Army steamrollering back west will of necessity have to occupy some zones anyway; Germany itself can hardly be trusted for instance, especially not if the Allies rip off territories to reward other neighboring nations like Poland and expel the Germans from these grants into a reduced Germany or fragmented set of small German states. I'd think maybe a workable procedure would be if all powers in the Alliance retain rights to small scattered bases in all liberated territories, and the right of inspectors to rove around and investigate without any check on them. With Eastern European states hosting small bases of the Western powers, and the western states having token Soviet bases scattered there too, maintaining armaments at low levels in the entire swath of intervening territory shouldn't be too hard.

Even if it were Stalin accepting and keeping these conditions, I don't believe it would mean that one fine day in the 1950s or early '60s, he or one of his successors would come sweeping in vast hordes like Mongols out of the USSR near-unopposed. The other two Great Powers never occupied by Hitler would have the same rights to arm as the USSR does, and if they aren't satisfied the Russians are keeping their force levels within reason they can can escalate themselves. The Communists OTL tended to be cautious and dilatory about starting invasions and if the West doesn't move on them, I don't think they'll move on the West.

If this Utopian plan of mine could work, Poland would be better off than Findlandized. She'd just be restricted from developing a big military or offering to host one, but otherwise free to be as reactionary as she likes.

I even wonder if Stalin himself could be persuaded to take such a deal. Probably not because he insisted on complete control wherever he could get it , and would worry about the subversive effect on his own Russians of sharing countries with contingents of western troops, in the matrix of nation free to express its opinions, if only nonviolently. Too many Soviet citizens might hear and learn the wrong things, or get dangerous ideas...
I think you are probably correct in most if not all the above. I even think it barely plausible that Stalin could agree to most of it provided he did not feel threatened by the West. I don't accept the Revisionist account that the Cold War was started by U.S./UK actions aimed at rolling back Soviet influence but it does seem plausible that actions and counter actions, plus misinterpretations by each side of the others intent, played a large role in its onset.

Maybe IF Roosevelt had lived that cycle wouldn't have been so vicious. As he and Stalin had a common interest in shafting the British Empire. Or a deal over Germany could have been done in 1946 or.... Perhaps even if the UK had realised Stalin had kept his word over not interfering in Greece and that it was Tito acting on his own that supported the Communists in the Civil War. Then the Cold War could have been more of a lukewarm competition for influence and Pournelles Co-Dominium could be in place by the 1970s.

Impossible to prove any of the above wrt Stalin of course or a longer lived FDR. A more realistic leadership in the USSR looks pretty implausible also given the circumstances of the 1930s but YNK. Though if Stalin had a heart attack in May 1945...

:)
 
What about organized Nazi terrorism post WW2 to give both the Soviets and Western Allies a severe headache? A Cold War could not start if both sides were in agreement that Nazism was still a threat.
 
I'm not sure about that. While I can see Gorbachev being open to allying with the US, I cannot imagine anyone in the US being open to allying with the "evil empire".

Soviet-US relations improved significantly under Gorbachev to the extent that he declared the Cold War over and supported the US-led Gulf War in 1991.

I'm not sure if the USSR would still be considered an "evil empire" after Gorby voluntarily dissolved the Warsaw Pact and COMECON (basically its whole "empire").

If his economic and political reforms succeeded, the USSR and Eastern Europe would have opened their economies and cultivated more ties with the West, rather than being a closed economy as per before. The West might have had a stake in the economies of the former Communist bloc as a result, so they would also have an incentive to improve relations.

If the new USSR could prosper (rather than politically and economically collapse in the 1990s as per OTL), it might become a partner of the West - if it could retain Gorbachev or leaders with a similar outlook in power.
 
Stalin, Trotsky, and Zinoviev die during the civil war or shortly after it.

Lenin still becomes sick and dies on schedule. The Right-Bolshevik faction of Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky are ascendant, and Kamenev goes along with them. Collective leadership is enshrined by the Right-Bolsheviks. NEP continues. Socialism In One Country is implemented, World/Permanent Revolution is consigned to the dustbin, and the Comintern ditches global revolutionary rhetoric in favour of Popular Front alliances with laborite, social democratic and progressive parties. Litvinov has official sanction to seek normalised trade and diplomatic relations with the West.
 

Archibald

Banned
Didn't Beria (as crazy as it sounds with perfect hindsight) wanted détente with Truman - around 1946-48 ? Have Stalin die during WWII and someone else taking the controls of the Soviet Union.
The Zukhov - Einsenhower connection is interesting.
 
Maybe have FDR decide to keep Henry Wallace as his VP in 1944, and then have him ascend to the Presidency in 45. Then have him win the 1948 election. Whilst this probably wouldn't be enough on its own, it does mean 8ish years of reasonably good relations between the two powers after the war, which could help smooth things along.

Other things to consider
  • Peaceful resolution to Chinese civil war and Korean partition, to prevent flashpoints in the Far East
  • Peaceful reunification of Germany to prevent any flashpoints over Berlin and create a buffer zone between the Soviet and American spheres in Europe
  • Diplomatic resolution to the Greek civil war and Turkish neutrality butterflying away/considerably altering the creation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact
  • Someone actually decides to think the partition of Palestine through and comes up with a workable solution that prevents the Israeli-Palestinian clusterfuck
 
Top