Cold War alternative mini-scenarios thread

What about having Britain become non-aligned (a lá Sweden or Yugoslavia) under a more left-wing Labour government.

An idea I've had for this is (perhaps with different leadership) Labour forcing the dissolution of the National Government and Churchill's resignation by exploiting an alternate failure at El Alamein (halting Churchill's Mediterranean strategy and bolstering Soviet-American pressure for an earlier invasion of France) and tensions over India (perhaps Stafford Cripps actively sides with India by publicly offering immediate Dominion status and post-war independence, the former of which he offered only privately).

They then wield this momentum and their credentials on the home front to reject the Conservative Party as a whole, necessitating an emergency wartime election that sweeps Labour into power, which then makes alternate decisions driving Britain towards non-alignment (e.g: maintaining the 'Tube Alloys' nuclear programme).

I already realise it's a risky and potentially unlikely set of events but what do you think. I'm mulling over making this a possible POD for a timeline on a non-aligned Labour-dominated Britain. I made a brainstorming thread for discussing it:
 

kernel

Gone Fishin'
What if the USSR in the late 1940s Finlandized Eastern Europe (and had troops stationed there) instead of creating communist dictatorship?
 
What if the USSR in the late 1940s Finlandized Eastern Europe (and had troops stationed there) instead of creating communist dictatorship?
Well I’ve seen a couple of pre-existing threads about that I, with these two being the most developed in my eyes:
In my eyes this would need/result in:
  1. No post-war Stalin, either due to natural death or assassination, followed a power struggle resulting in a less ideological candidate.
  2. This combined with Finlandisation would lead to a much earlier form of detente/peaceful coexistence, perhaps even bypassing the Cold War.
  3. May lead to greater electoral success for Communists in France and Italy, who historically verged on winning power in the 40s and 50s.
  4. This could even allow this Soviet sphere to expand westward, perhaps allowing for the formation of a unified Soviet-leaning European Bloc.
Arguably one could view this as a better situation for the Soviet Union than OTL, in providing a far more extensive buffer zone, indirect access to Marshall Aid*, a significant reduction in military expenditure due to butterflying the arms race away, and an improved reputation in the West.

The main issue for this alternate Soviet Union is the CPSU maintaining sole political control in the face of a neighbouring block of “allied” semi-capitalist democracies, while maintaining some form of authoritarian command economy. The most likely outcome is a partial liberalisation of economics (towards Kadarism or a Yugoslav-style system) to then combine with greater international aid and trade in order to fuel an even greater economic recovery than OTL (the USSR did keep and close in somewhat on the West during the 50s and 60s) that the CPSU then builds its political legitimacy on (a lá modern China). Conversely I’d believe that this reformed Soviet Union wouldn’t fully de-Stalinise, and instead follow something more like the CCP’s interpretation of Mao (i.e: “he did what was necessary”, “70% right, 30% wrong”).
 
Last edited:
What if the USSR in the late 1940s Finlandized Eastern Europe (and had troops stationed there) instead of creating communist dictatorship?
Perhaps Horthy's attempt to switch sides and the Slovak National Uprising succeed forcing Stalin to deal with two more Romanias (non-communist eastern european allies who still have control over their own militaries). At which point he may decide that Finlandization is preferable to plotting three separate coups.
 
The USSR launches their own manned lunar mission in 1971 despite the Americans beating them to it. Simply so that the Soviets could say that they did it too.
 
@Viriato post: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...in-portugal-december-1973.262973/post-6981111
@ruisramos
aIFZBD2.png
 
USSR invades Iran along with Iraq in 1980

USSR attacks Pakistan along with India in 1971
I think the USSR would have invaded Iran only in that scenario; the USSR supported Iraq because the Ba’athist regime, whilst different in doctrine, were secularist, vaguely “socialist” authoritarians who aligned with Soviet foreign policy (i.e: suppressing the influence of Iranian Islamism in Afghanistan and Central Asia); given that Iraq would come to blows with the USA at the other end of 80s, one would imagine the Soviets seeing Iraq better serving as plausibly deniable example of anti-imperialism than another difficult to handle satellite state.

My imagining of a version of that scenario would be as the aftermath of decisive Iraqi victory (likely in 81’ or 82’ with unbroken momentum), resulting in the annexation of Khuzestan and other border areas. Such a loss triggers mass unrest against Khomeini’s government, bringing Iran to the verge of civil war; invited by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq and supported by Iraq, the USSR launches an “intervention” into Iran in late 1981 or 82’ (or concurrent with the Iraqi invasion) with the aim of “supporting the will of the people against reactionary tyranny”, rapidly overwhelming the already ravaged Iranian armed forces and establishing an “Iranian People’s Republic” under the rule of Massoud Rajavi’s MEK, becoming a Soviet-aligned satellite state, though with more internal autonomy than the Eastern Bloc as an overture to the Islam-tinged ideologies of the MEK and Ba’athists.

Carrying on to your second point I can see a version of the USSR, but not in 1971 given that Afghanistan was still a monarchy and likely unwilling to accept the passage without an additional invasion of Afghanistan, which was unsuccessful for the Soviets even when Afghanistan’s official government was their ally. If the USSR were to invade Pakistan I would have it happen in 1984 justified as a strike against support for the Afghan mujahideen, and coordinated with a Indian invasion of Pakistan tied to the anti-Khalistan campaign of that year, which Pakistan was allegedly involved with (the casus belli for Indian involvement). I would imagine the outcome seeing Pakistan’s armed forces overwhelmed by Soviet and Indian forces, resulting in Pakistan’s partition between India (rest of Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh), Afghanistan (Pashtun areas), and perhaps Iran getting Baluchistan (you could fit this into my Iran scenario).
 
Last edited:
Continuing on, what about the idea of Britain being driven into some form of insurgency or civil war during the 80s, perhaps from an intensification of the Troubles and labour unrest in OTL?
 
Last edited:
Continuing on, what about the idea of Britain being driven into some form of insurgency or civil war during the 80s, perhaps from an intensification of the Troubles and labour unrest in OTL?
It’s extremely unlikely for any level of “intensification” of the Troubles would destabilise the U.K. to the extent of a civil war/large scale insurgency. By the 80s the security forces pretty much know who and what the various groups have and have their people embedded in the groups.
 
It’s extremely unlikely for any level of “intensification” of the Troubles would destabilise the U.K. to the extent of a civil war/large scale insurgency. By the 80s the security forces pretty much know who and what the various groups have and have their people embedded in the groups.
What would it take for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom to not want to be united anymore e la For All Time?
 

Monk78

Kicked
I think the USSR would have invaded Iran only in that scenario; the USSR supported Iraq because the Ba’athist regime, whilst different in doctrine, were secularist, vaguely “socialist” authoritarians who aligned with Soviet foreign policy (i.e: suppressing the influence of Iranian Islamism in Afghanistan and Central Asia); given that Iraq would come to blows with the USA at the other end of 80s, one would imagine the Soviets seeing Iraq better serving as plausibly deniable example of anti-imperialism than another difficult to handle satellite state.

My imagining of a version of that scenario would be as the aftermath of decisive Iraqi victory (likely in 81’ or 82’ with unbroken momentum), resulting in the annexation of Khuzestan and other border areas. Such a loss triggers mass unrest against Khomeini’s government, bringing Iran to the verge of civil war; invited by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq and supported by Iraq, the USSR launches an “intervention” into Iran in late 1981 or 82’ (or concurrent with the Iraqi invasion) with the aim of “supporting the will of the people against reactionary tyranny”, rapidly overwhelming the already ravaged Iranian armed forces and establishing an “Iranian People’s Republic” under the rule of Massoud Rajavi’s MEK, becoming a Soviet-aligned satellite state, though with more internal autonomy than the Eastern Bloc as an overture to the Islam-tinged ideologies of the MEK and Ba’athists.

Carrying on to your second point I can see a version of the USSR, but not in 1971 given that Afghanistan was still a monarchy and likely unwilling to accept the passage without an additional invasion of Afghanistan, which was unsuccessful for the Soviets even when Afghanistan’s official government was their ally. If the USSR were to invade Pakistan I would have it happen in 1984 justified as a strike against support for the Afghan mujahideen, and coordinated with a Indian invasion of Pakistan tied to the anti-Khalistan campaign of that year, which Pakistan was allegedly involved with (the casus belli for Indian involvement). I would imagine the outcome seeing Pakistan’s armed forces overwhelmed by Soviet and Indian forces, resulting in Pakistan’s partition between India (rest of Kashmir, Punjab, Sindh), Afghanistan (Pashtun areas), and perhaps Iran getting Baluchistan (you could fit this into my Iran scenario).
Can USSR and India just bomb and destroy a lot of Pakistani military infrastructure but just not occupy it ?
 
I was inspired by my little idea and ended up using it as background for my submission to the SLP Alternate Antarcticas* anthology! We don't get to actually see much of the conflict, but the protagonist was on the HMS Endurance when it was sunk and the fact that the conflict is creeping south has a definite effect on his mental state.


*They're actually looking for more submissions if any of you all know someone who might be interested! The new deadline is November 15th.
So there were some understandable delays but this anthology is moving forward and my story got selected! I'm so excited this is my first published piece of fiction!
 

Monk78

Kicked
During the Ogden conflict, what if the Cubans and Soviets decide to go all the way into Somalia and conquer it ? Install a puppet regime
 
During the Ogden conflict, what if the Cubans and Soviets decide to go all the way into Somalia and conquer it ? Install a puppet regime
Mohamud Osman Irro attempted to lead a coup against Barre after the defeat otl
He was a staunch leftist who allegedly opposed the Pro-China/US position that Barre was taking

so Irro is a candidate for puppet President or maybe not
 

Monk78

Kicked
Mohamud Osman Irro attempted to lead a coup against Barre after the defeat otl
He was a staunch leftist who allegedly opposed the Pro-China/US position that Barre was taking

so Irro is a candidate for puppet President or maybe not
And maybe this can lead to a local conflagration with Egypt intervening on the side of the US China backed Barre
 

Monk78

Kicked
Go to Soviet adopt a different approach to their occupation of eastern Europe and confronting NATO?
Rather than extensive army groups with a lot of mobile warfare units and a large number of tactical aircraft in Europe, they just Garrison Eastern Europe with B and C category divisions? Rely on tactical nukes esp IRBM to prevent any attack by NATO ?
This could save a lot of their budget plus really bolster their units in Asia and far East
 
Go to Soviet adopt a different approach to their occupation of eastern Europe and confronting NATO?
Rather than extensive army groups with a lot of mobile warfare units and a large number of tactical aircraft in Europe, they just Garrison Eastern Europe with B and C category divisions? Rely on tactical nukes esp IRBM to prevent any attack by NATO ?
This could save a lot of their budget plus really bolster their units in Asia and far East
Then they will be relying on the shitty troops led by crappy officers who will be responsible for their nuclear centered warfare if something happens with NATO. Aside from doing this as a lead-up to an attempted nuclear decapitation/first-strike by the Soviets on Maoist China idk why the Sovietd would do this.
 

Monk78

Kicked
Then they will be relying on the shitty troops led by crappy officers who will be responsible for their nuclear centered warfare if something happens with NATO. Aside from doing this as a lead-up to an attempted nuclear decapitation/first-strike by the Soviets on Maoist China idk why the Sovietd would do this.
Good points but if the main purpose of these troops is simply garrisoning Eastern Europe and not taking offensive against NATO , I don’t see how that will change things
 
Top