Could the USSR win the cold war?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not necessary.

IOTL, in order to give people an illusion of independence, Czechoslovakia and Poland kept their flags (without defacing it with a communist badge), Cuba even kept its name (Republic of Cuba, not Socialist/People's/Democratic Republic of Cuba).

Same goes for the UN, its name may be kept as a sign of "fairness". In addition, the Soviets was a founding state of the UN.

Just made fun when i heard about United Socialist States of America. ;)
 
The hardest part of any "USSR win Cold War" scenario is that even when the Main Adversary appeared to be in crisis Soviet were never really up to catch the train: for example in the 70s, a decade during which US and Western Europe seemed to be on dire straits, they were unable to rectify what was going wrong with their economy (mismanagement, the unbearable spending in military, the costly support to friendly regimes around the world...) or to represent a wining, working alternative to the other bloc.
 

katchen

Banned
I'm sure someone must have done a POD in which Trotsky won out over Stalin. How would that have worked out?
 
The USSR was always playing a losing hand during the Cold War. Behind economically and technologically, behind in getting nuclear weapons, crippled by constant agricultural failures and stuck with a set of "allies" that were mostly opportunistic fellow travelers... but they played that hand fucking beautifully, with diplomatic skill and sheer chutzpah that would make Metternich weep.

Still, if you want the Soviets to win the Cold War you need a PoD with a less painful victory in WWII, or maybe even avoiding Stalin's long-term hobbling of the country entirely. Well, that's "win" as in win as thoroughly as the US did IOTL. If you want the USSR to "win on points" by surviving to the present day and being more prestigious than the US, that might juuust be possible.
 

elkarlo

Banned
:D

Yeah, planning people who assume the enemy won't fight hard...

Not what I said. Said they were unsure if the soviets would have been able to sustain an attack against a determined enemy and in the face of heavy loses. Also they never doubted their willingness to defend.
Also every game ended in nuclear war
 

elkarlo

Banned
The hardest part of any "USSR win Cold War" scenario is that even when the Main Adversary appeared to be in crisis Soviet were never really up to catch the train: for example in the 70s, a decade during which US and Western Europe seemed to be on dire straits, they were unable to rectify what was going wrong with their economy (mismanagement, the unbearable spending in military, the costly support to friendly regimes around the world...) or to represent a wining, working alternative to the other bloc.

Yeah they couldn't even copy and replicate what the west was doing in the ways of tech and agricultural. They had what 1% annual growth rates of GDP since the late 70s? The USSR needed some serious economic reforms. What would those consist of? Got me
 
Yeah they couldn't even copy and replicate what the west was doing in the ways of tech and agricultural. They had what 1% annual growth rates of GDP since the late 70s? The USSR needed some serious economic reforms. What would those consist of? Got me

They were very good at proxy wars, and the economics of funding guerillas vs funding conventional armies or even fielding your own troops worked out very well for them, until Afganistan.

Communism was, hell, is still very attractive to oppressed poor, of which there were a lot of during the Cold War.

And to a small, but useful number among the elite too.
 
They were very good at proxy wars, and the economics of funding guerillas vs funding conventional armies or even fielding your own troops worked out very well for them, until Afganistan.

Communism was, hell, is still very attractive to oppressed poor, of which there were a lot of during the Cold War.

And to a small, but useful number among the elite too.

Uhm, maybe you should ask yourself how much are costing to you those proxy wars and how these could improve your economic situation, even looking in prospective; and after all while funding freedom fighters there were a lot of institutional armies in Eastern Europe and around the world on the USSR's bill.

The question was not to be attractive to -let's say- poor people in Cambodia or Burkina Faso, you should had looked attractive to majority in Western Germany or France or Italy.
 
The hardest part of any "USSR win Cold War" scenario is that even when the Main Adversary appeared to be in crisis Soviet were never really up to catch the train: for example in the 70s, a decade during which US and Western Europe seemed to be on dire straits, they were unable to rectify what was going wrong with their economy (mismanagement, the unbearable spending in military, the costly support to friendly regimes around the world...) or to represent a wining, working alternative to the other bloc.

Actually, there were many people in the Soviet Union who recognized problems but many of them had neither no idea what to do, thought that solving those problems were impossible or were unable to convince other people in leading positions about the importance of those issues.

I think the Soviets winning the Cold War is more ASB than a successful Sealion. The Soviet economic model doomed the country to inevitable economic collapse, while the governmental model made sure that the bulk of the people had little or no loyalty to the state. It's really a miracle that the Soviet Union lasted as long as it did.

I don't think it's a miracle. Countries, even very dysfunctional ones, can last surprisingly long periods.

One thing many post-Stalin Soviet leaders were unable to recognize was how the demographic situation in the country had changed. In earlier periods there was always people who could move from rural areas to cities and get a job factories. This partially was one of the reason why the Soviet Union was able to industrialize in a way as fast it did. You just built a factory and there were always few peasants you could move to work there. This started to change in the 60's as the country was becoming increasingly urbanized and population growth slowed down. There were even regions which suffered labour shortages (Siberia) while at the same time other areas had high unemployment (Central Asia). By the 60's it would have been important to take into account the availability of workforce while planning new projects but planners failed usually to do this.
 
Most people are way too pesimistic about the USSR.

Take the economy for example:
The USSR had a higher economic growth than the USA during allmost all of its existance. See, a planned economy has a higher potential of both quantity and quality of production.

A market economy is lead by the profit motive. So CEOs will only produxe stuff that is profitable, instead of focusing on stuff people need. A good example would be the food situation in the OTL third world: The production capacity would be enough to feed much more people (if not everyone) by now. Yet those people have no (or not much) money. So its much more profitable to ship the stuff to europe or the US where it is wasted intead of feeding the people.

Also in a market economy there is no share of information (why tell important stuff to competitors?), so a lot of labour is wasted or directed wrongly.

Furthermore the economy cant be directed without state interference. So if it would be long term good to invest, say in industry, the government cant do it, and the country must wait untill capitalist progression leads to industrialisation. Thats why US industrialisation took over 100 years, while USSR ones took only 21 years.

Last but not least, recession crissis is a thing inherent in capitalism.

Long story short: The problem with capitalism is, that it produces for profit, not for the people.


So to the original topic:
There are multiple ways the ussr could have won the cold war:

1. Avoid Gorbatchevs horrible economic reforms, the pollitical destruction of the eastern bloc (By letting the west infiltrate the governments od the various states. The best example would be east germany, where the opposition only wanted a reformed communism, but some people in the party overthrew the Honecker government an signed the reunificatin treaty. The book 'Triumph of the evil goes by making Grigory Romanov win the power struggle. Than make the USSR crack down on opposition movements around the eastern bloc. Then end the econimic stagnation (I dont deny the stagnation,but STILL, USSR had a higher growth than the US). Investing in computerisation (something brezhnev missed out) would help greatly.

Then just let the coldwar continue as it went, and with the same growth trends, the USSRs economy overtakes the American one by the 2010s.Then make the USSR fund anti-neocolonialist and communist movements all over the third world. And the US economy (dependent on neo-colonial exploitation) will collapse. The US isnt likely to go communist instantly, but it will go for some kind of neo-isolationism ,withdrawing troops and economic investment from foreign countries and leaving nato, as well as stop the funding of its other allies. The USSR funds communist movements in western europe.
Due to the USAs new course, the economies of western europe (also dependent on neo-colonial exploitation, and also american investment), western european economies crash aswell so communist parties gain a lot of support.

Untill the 2020s the western european states have gone communist, and the USSR has won the cold war. Other nations around the world will follow, until the USA itself will goes communist, seeing the progress this socio-economic system has archieved. Maybe states like Texas, Alaska, California and Hawai become independent communist nations.

Now its only a matter of time untill all the world goes red, and full, and automised communism will be reached.


2. You can get all of that a lot faster, if the USSR invested more in automatisation before. In the 60s this idea was, indeed, proposed, but stopped by some elements of the party. If this system, called OGAS, was implemented, the USSRs economy would experience a phantastic boom, as the now free workforce could be used in other parts of the economy, while at the same time, people would have to work less. The USSR would overtake the west economicly, by the 1980s, thought the workload of its people was much lesser, than in the west and people in the west wouldnt even toil for themselves, but for private capitalists. Communism will skyrocket in popularity all around the world, and western europe becomes communist in the late 80s. The USA suffers from internal strife, due to the failing economy and maybe also racial tensions. The rest of the story will be quite the same as in my first scenario.


What I also wanted to say: No doubt, that most of the eastern bloc had an economic crissis in the 1980s. But that was not because of communism. For example Poland, Romania and Hungary
had massive debts, because they took big loans during the 60s and 70s. But they didnt invest this money into the growth of the economy, but into the import of consumer goods. In the 80s they had to pay this money back, which dealt a bad blow to their economies.

Another famous myth is the 'inefficiency' of soviet agriculture. On this topic, I will just point out the great criticism of this topic by american economist Joseph E. Medley (from the university of southern Maine), and the two books 'Farm to Factory', by Robert C. Allen, and 'Triuph of the evil', by Austin Murphy.

Also I want to point out, that the USSR and the USA had a completely different historical backround. The US had their industrial revolution in the 1800s, while the USSR had their industrial revolution in the 1930s. They Russian Emoire was a poor and agrarian country with a live expectancy of 35 in 1913, while the USA at the same time was a quite developed and industrial country with a live expectancy of 52. The average american earned 17 times that of the average russian. So from the start on, it was not even. And then, during WW2 a lot of european (mostly eastern european) industry and infrastructure was destroyed, and the USSR lost 27 million people, of a total population of 180 million people.
The US mainland was completely untouched by the war. The US spend tens of Billions of dolars to re-build western europe (Through the Marshall plan and investment), while the USSR had to re-build itself and couldnt help their allies re-building. Economy is build on the base, so this loss of economic power during the war dealt an unimaginable amount of damage in the long term (Without the losses of labourpower and output of the war, some economists say, that the USSR would have overtaken the US by 1990).

With that sayd, yes the USSR could have won the cold war. Its a miracle that the USA won the cold war OTL, and the USSR collapsed (actually it wasnt really a collapde. Yelzin and a bunch of other politicians met in 1991 in Alma Ata and signwd the 'Union Dissolution' treaty.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_historical_GDP

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Evil-Austin-Murphy/dp/8883980026

https://www.amazon.com/Farm-Factory-Reinterpretation-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0691144311
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Most people are way too pesimistic about the USSR.

Take the economy for example:
The USSR had a higher economic growth than the USA during allmost all of its existance. See, a planned economy has a higher potential of both quantity and quality of production.

A market economy is lead by the profit motive. So CEOs will only produxe stuff that is profitable, instead of focusing on stuff people need. A good example would be the food situation in the OTL third world: The production capacity would be enough to feed much more people (if not everyone) by now. Yet those people have no (or not much) money. So its much more profitable to ship the stuff to europe or the US where it is wasted intead of feeding the people.

Also in a market economy there is no share of information (why tell important stuff to competitors?), so a lot of labour is wasted or directed wrongly.

Furthermore the economy cant be directed without state interference. So if it would be long term good to invest, say in industry, the government cant do it, and the country must wait untill capitalist progression leads to industrialisation. Thats why US industrialisation took over 100 years, while USSR ones took only 21 years.

Last but not least, recession crissis is a thing inherent in capitalism.

Long story short: The problem with capitalism is, that it produces for profit, not for the people.


So to the original topic:
There are multiple ways the ussr could have won the cold war:

1. Avoid Gorbatchevs horrible economic reforms, the pollitical destruction of the eastern bloc (By letting the west infiltrate the governments od the various states. The best example would be east germany, where the opposition only wanted a reformed communism, but some people in the party overthrew the Honecker government an signed the reunificatin treaty. The book 'Triumph of the evil goes by making Grigory Romanov win the power struggle. Than make the USSR crack down on opposition movements around the eastern bloc. Then end the econimic stagnation (I dont deny the stagnation,but STILL, USSR had a higher growth than the US). Investing in computerisation (something brezhnev missed out) would help greatly.

Then just let the coldwar continue as it went, and with the same growth trends, the USSRs economy overtakes the American one by the 2010s.Then make the USSR fund anti-neocolonialist and communist movements all over the third world. And the US economy (dependent on neo-colonial exploitation) will collapse. The US isnt likely to go communist instantly, but it will go for some kind of neo-isolationism ,withdrawing troops and economic investment from foreign countries and leaving nato, as well as stop the funding of its other allies. The USSR funds communist movements in western europe.
Due to the USAs new course, the economies of western europe (also dependent on neo-colonial exploitation, and also american investment), western european economies crash aswell so communist parties gain a lot of support.

Untill the 2020s the western european states have gone communist, and the USSR has won the cold war. Other nations around the world will follow, until the USA itself will goes communist, seeing the progress this socio-economic system has archieved. Maybe states like Texas, Alaska, California and Hawai become independent communist nations.

Now its only a matter of time untill all the world goes red, and full, and automised communism will be reached.


2. You can get all of that a lot faster, if the USSR invested more in automatisation before. In the 60s this idea was, indeed, proposed, but stopped by some elements of the party. If this system, called OGAS, was implemented, the USSRs economy would experience a phantastic boom, as the now free workforce could be used in other parts of the economy, while at the same time, people would have to work less. The USSR would overtake the west economicly, by the 1980s, thought the workload of its people was much lesser, than in the west and people in the west wouldnt even toil for themselves, but for private capitalists. Communism will skyrocket in popularity all around the world, and western europe becomes communist in the late 80s. The USA suffers from internal strife, due to the failing economy and maybe also racial tensions. The rest of the story will be quite the same as in my first scenario.


What I also wanted to say: No doubt, that most of the eastern bloc had an economic crissis in the 1980s. But that was not because of communism. For example Poland, Romania and Hungary
had massive debts, because they took big loans during the 60s and 70s. But they didnt invest this money into the growth of the economy, but into the import of consumer goods. In the 80s they had to pay this money back, which dealt a bad blow to their economies.

Another famous myth is the 'inefficiency' of soviet agriculture. On this topic, I will just point out the great criticism of this topic by american economist Joseph E. Medley (from the university of southern Maine), and the two books 'Farm to Factory', by Robert C. Allen, and 'Triuph of the evil', by Austin Murphy.

Also I want to point out, that the USSR and the USA had a completely different historical backround. The US had their industrial revolution in the 1800s, while the USSR had their industrial revolution in the 1930s. They Russian Emoire was a poor and agrarian country with a live expectancy of 35 in 1913, while the USA at the same time was a quite developed and industrial country with a live expectancy of 52. The average american earned 17 times that of the average russian. So from the start on, it was not even. And then, during WW2 a lot of european (mostly eastern european) industry and infrastructure was destroyed, and the USSR lost 27 million people, of a total population of 180 million people.
The US mainland was completely untouched by the war. The US spend tens of Billions of dolars to re-build western europe (Through the Marshall plan and investment), while the USSR had to re-build itself and couldnt help their allies re-building. Economy is build on the base, so this loss of economic power during the war dealt an unimaginable amount of damage in the long term (Without the losses of labourpower and output of the war, some economists say, that the USSR would have overtaken the US by 1990).

With that sayd, yes the USSR could have won the cold war. Its a miracle that the USA won the cold war OTL, and the USSR collapsed (actually it wasnt really a collapde. Yelzin and a bunch of other politicians met in 1991 in Alma Ata and signwd the 'Union Dissolution' treaty.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_historical_GDP

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Soviet_Union

https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Evil-Austin-Murphy/dp/8883980026

https://www.amazon.com/Farm-Factory-Reinterpretation-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0691144311
Please refrain from replying to threads that have been dormant for six months or longer.

Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top