Cold War Parity Scenarios

Delta Force

Banned
With a PoD after 1945, how could the two major Cold War blocks have come into a position of both economic and military parity?
 
My TL Stars & Sickles, whilst far from finished, is developing into this, at least to an extent.

Even if we leave aside the inherent differences between the Soviet and American economic systems, the United States had a significant geopolitical advantage. It had many more allies, a greater degree of international power projection, and was able to cozy itself up to the elites of many different systems, because of an arguably more flexible ideology (or at least, by putting less importance on ideology over realpolitik). I'll probably go into more detail after a few other people post, but I'm not far off hitting the hay so that'll have to wait until tomorrow :openedeyewink:
 
With a PoD after 1945, how could the two major Cold War blocks have come into a position of both economic and military parity?

In my view this is pretty much ASB after 1945. The Russian Empire was a third world country with low population density, poor literacy rates and an appalling climate. That is a very, very low base to build up from. For the Soviets to build up to the point that they equaled the richest, most powerful country in the world... Well, I just don't see how they could have done it without a PoD in the early 20s, and even with an extra 20 years to make better decisions in, pretty much everything would have to go right for them to equal the US - i.e. we're talking a brazen wank.

OTL the only country to overtake the US economically between 1900 and 1989 was Japan - and Japan has a highly concentrated population all of which is fairly close to a port. That allowed the Japanese to follow an economic development strategy based on trade which the USSR could not replicate with as much success (though the USSR being more trade-focused instead of wasting vast amounts of resources developing uneconomical resources in Siberia in the 70s and 80s would definitely have helped them come closer to being an equal).

Similarly, after 1945 the Soviets have extremely limited opportunities in Western Europe. Britain, France, Germany the USSR and the minor European states all in one alliance might be able to act as a real equal to the US, after 1945 though, the best I can see being possible is for the strong alliance between the US and Europe to not form.

Do the two cold war blocks have to include the US? Because the US turning isolationist again is about the most likely path I can see to the Soviet block gaining parity.

fasquardon
 

Delta Force

Banned
In my view this is pretty much ASB after 1945. The Russian Empire was a third world country with low population density, poor literacy rates and an appalling climate. That is a very, very low base to build up from. For the Soviets to build up to the point that they equaled the richest, most powerful country in the world... Well, I just don't see how they could have done it without a PoD in the early 20s, and even with an extra 20 years to make better decisions in, pretty much everything would have to go right for them to equal the US - i.e. we're talking a brazen wank.

OTL the only country to overtake the US economically between 1900 and 1989 was Japan - and Japan has a highly concentrated population all of which is fairly close to a port. That allowed the Japanese to follow an economic development strategy based on trade which the USSR could not replicate with as much success (though the USSR being more trade-focused instead of wasting vast amounts of resources developing uneconomical resources in Siberia in the 70s and 80s would definitely have helped them come closer to being an equal).

Similarly, after 1945 the Soviets have extremely limited opportunities in Western Europe. Britain, France, Germany the USSR and the minor European states all in one alliance might be able to act as a real equal to the US, after 1945 though, the best I can see being possible is for the strong alliance between the US and Europe to not form.

The Soviet Union has a larger population and more natural resources than even the United States. The Western Soviet Union has some of the best coal and iron deposits in the world, as well as the best farmland. The Soviet Union was also the largest petroleum producer in the world.

Do the two cold war blocks have to include the US? Because the US turning isolationist again is about the most likely path I can see to the Soviet block gaining parity.

The Commonwealth was the only other superpower at the time. Maybe if the United States doesn't economically undermine it or the Seuz Crisis doesn't occur it would be in a position to replace the United States in the Cold War.
 
The Soviet Union has a larger population and more natural resources than even the United States. The Western Soviet Union has some of the best coal and iron deposits in the world, as well as the best farmland. The Soviet Union was also the largest petroleum producer in the world.

So what? Most of those natural resources are situated away from ports, away from population centers and in beastly climates.

Most of the USSR's coal is in the middle of Siberia. Most of their oil, similarly, in the difficult terrain of West Siberia. Most of their farmland in areas with short growing seasons and a propensity to drought.

The population centers of the US, by contrast, are situated near ports allowing them to access the very best resources of the "free world" by sea. The American cities are also much closer to each-other and closer to the seriously large resource concentrations of the US - the coal from the Appalachians doesn't have to go far to reach major port cities. The central valley in California, responsible for something like 40% of farm output in the US most years, had no parallel in the Soviet Union.

The USSR's large resources were probably more of a curse than a blessing, since it tempted the USSR's planners to invest in areas that actually reduced the total factor productivity of the USSR (like Siberian oil). If the USSR had not had Siberia's riches to tempt them into wasting money, they would have been forced to follow a more Japanese path in the '70s and '80s, which would have been much better for them.

The Commonwealth was the only other superpower at the time. Maybe if the United States doesn't economically undermine it or the Seuz Crisis doesn't occur it would be in a position to replace the United States in the Cold War.

Yeah, a cold war between Britain+commonwealth on one side and, say, France and the USSR (would have to be a USSR that had embraced a more democratic vision tho) on the other might be fairly equal. Or maybe between Britain alone (but one that retains more colonies than OTL) and a USSR alone that is slightly wanked.

fasquardon
 
IMO if you can prevent (or minimise, or later repair) the Sino-Soviet split, and kill Mao off while doing it, an Eastern Bloc of the USSR and PRC would definitely be a much more formidable enemy that either opponent in isolation.
 
IMO if you can prevent (or minimise, or later repair) the Sino-Soviet split, and kill Mao off while doing it, an Eastern Bloc of the USSR and PRC would definitely be a much more formidable enemy that either opponent in isolation.

Hmm. How about an extended cold war scenario where the Soviets and the Chinese have a rapprochement in the 80s even as the US-China relation freezes after Tienanmen Square. The Chinese follow pretty much their OTL course of reform as the Soviets have some success in implementing Hungarian style market socialism (not IMO a long term solution for their economic woes, but let's assume it allows them to at least keep up with US economic growth over the '90s and 2000s). Both China and the Soviets have some success in splitting the Europeans from the "western" side of the Cold War, perhaps with the Soviets allowing German re-unification in order to secure Germany's exit from the NATO alliance. France follows in the decade following German re-unification, with the EU becoming an independent military alliance as well as an economic alliance (I imagine the UK would be even less keen on the EU in TTL).

ITTL, China would trade less with the US and more with Europe, and would spend more on military spending. Most likely, this slows the Chinese down compared to OTL, but I suspect not by so much.

That might get close to economic and military parity. Even so... I think the US alliance would still have an edge over the Sino-Soviet alliance of many trillions of dollars GDP/year. And France and Germany exiting NATO is kinda ASB if you ask me...

fasquardon
 
Hmm. How about an extended cold war scenario where the Soviets and the Chinese have a rapprochement in the 80s even as the US-China relation freezes after Tienanmen Square. The Chinese follow pretty much their OTL course of reform as the Soviets have some success in implementing Hungarian style market socialism (not IMO a long term solution for their economic woes, but let's assume it allows them to at least keep up with US economic growth over the '90s and 2000s). Both China and the Soviets have some success in splitting the Europeans from the "western" side of the Cold War, perhaps with the Soviets allowing German re-unification in order to secure Germany's exit from the NATO alliance. France follows in the decade following German re-unification, with the EU becoming an independent military alliance as well as an economic alliance (I imagine the UK would be even less keen on the EU in TTL).
Too little too late IMO, the Soviet economy is on the rocks, and the Chinese one hasn't the weight to back them up, plus neither nation has liberal enough economies to allow the level of growth needed to really equal the USA, not without significant outside investment, which isn't going to come, with or without NATO.

Meanwhile giving away East Germany maybe takes Germany out of NATO, but not the EU, and is likely to lead to discontent in the other WP powers that aren't members of the USSR (several of whom were borrowing money from the US), especially Poland, which was never a happy camper.
 
Last edited:
Too little too late IMO, the Soviet economy is on the rocks, and the Chinese one hasn't the weight to back them up, plus neither nation has liberal enough economies to allow the level of growth needed to really equal the USA, not without significant outside investment, which isn't going to come, with or without NATO.

Repairing the sino-soviet breach too early might undermine the drive to reform the Chinese economy though, and really, the easiest (maybe only) way to have an "eastern" alliance that can reach parity with the "west" is for that alliance to have a strong China. And I'm not sure if the Soviet model of development could bring China up to scratch, even if the Maoist madness is avoided.

As for outside investment - this is another reason why weakening the Euro-American relationship is necessary to have a hope of meeting the challenge. Europe can fill the void filled by lesser US investment and Hong Kong, can, as per OTL, act as a financial center for the PRC.

fasquardon
 
Stalin killed most everyone with any initiative or intelligence. And the ones who werent killed were too scared to speak up. So the USSR isnt catching up. If you want parity, you need a dystopic USA. Hard to do.
 
Stalin killed most everyone with any initiative or intelligence. And the ones who werent killed were too scared to speak up. So the USSR isnt catching up. If you want parity, you need a dystopic USA. Hard to do.
Stalin only ruled until 1953. Unfortunately, Khrushchev, while an improvement, wasn't himself a genius, and Brezhnev was worse.
 
Stalin only ruled until 1953. Unfortunately, Khrushchev, while an improvement, wasn't himself a genius, and Brezhnev was worse.

Yes, and so were all their underlings. Podgorny, Shelepin, Suslov and on and on. Leaders can be pushed in the right direction by good subordinates. None of them were any better.
 
Top