DBWI: The Non-Aligned Movement doesn't win the Cold War

I'm sure you've heard this story before. At the end of the Second World War the stage was set for an epic struggle between the forces of the USA and capitalism on one side versus the USSR and the Communist Bloc on the other. Neither side would tolerate the success of the other and both had a world to win. Against this backdrop, however, many took exception to the prospect of living in a world dominated by two militaristic superpowers treating other countries as expendable chess pieces in their pissing contest, and thus was born the Non-Aligned Movement. Over time this rag-tag group of idealists grew in size and strength, bringing together liberal democracies, tinpot dictators and dissident Communists, until they were able to challenge, and ultimately defeat, the two superpowers, ushering in a new order of national self-determination, international cooperation and anti-imperialism.

But what if it were otherwise? What would the world be like if the NAM had never become the major force it was in world politics, and instead either the USA or the USSR was able to emerge triumphant as the undisputed hegemon of the world?
 
A lot fewer Indian military bases around the world, for starters. And, along with that, probably a lot fewer burnings of the Indian flag by protestors in places like Christchurch, Tokyo and San Diego, California.

(Not sure why the San Diego uprising was so virulently anti-Indian, since the Tiajuana intervention was mostly Cuban troops anyway.)
 
The problem with this question is that so many things went just precisely so for the NAM. I'm firmly of the school of thought that says the NAM winning was a one in a trillion chance, dumb luck happening over and over and each fluke magnifying the rest. Hell, even managing to keep infighting amid the members contained was virtually a miracle unto itself. What you're really asking is what would happen if there wasn't divine intervention in favor of the NAM, since that's clearly the only way it happened.

My gut hunch is that the US wins. Without everything that went wrong for the US in our timeline, they're the strongest nation without a doubt. The Soviets have a lot of land, but have endemic problems that the US doesn't. So...we see a capitalist world lead by the US. The immediate post WW2 role continues, with US bases everywhere, the US being the most influential nation and the US Navy being everywhere. Finer details depend on the political personalities that rise to the top, but I think you'd see a prosperous world.
 
OOC: How can the "Non-Aligned Movement" win, given that it has no ideological objectives other than vaguely be neutral in the Cold War (which many members such as Cuba and North Korea weren't). In order for it to win and the OTL superpowers to lose, it must have strategic objectives that it must accomplish.
 
I suppose you'd have to prevent the creation of the "Anti-Domination Alliance," which was the NAM's equivalent of NATO, in order to prevent "Bloc domination" , and ensure that world peace was maintained, as described in its charter. Without that, and both power blocs ignoring it for a time, the 1968 intervention in Czechoslovakia (which lead to Czechoslovakia joining the Non-Aligned League during the Prague Spring), and later to defeat the military coup in Chile in 1973 helped really establish the NAM as a true bloc in some ways.
 
OOC: How can the "Non-Aligned Movement" win, given that it has no ideological objectives other than vaguely be neutral in the Cold War (which many members such as Cuba and North Korea weren't). In order for it to win and the OTL superpowers to lose, it must have strategic objectives that it must accomplish.


OOC: I imagine that if the NAM (and possibly also the UN) were to develop some actual power and influence, it would ultimately develop some sort of ideological justification to hold the movement together and give them something to rally around in the name of "neither Washington nor Moscow". I Imagine it would contain a strong element of anti-colonialism and opposing neo-colonialism, as well as strong sense that countries should be free to choose their own paths on their own terms. I also think that a more successful NAM would be less of a power bloc in and of itself, and more a loose alliance of regional blocs with some interest in keeping the Yanks and the Soviets out of their business. So for example there would be an Independant Balkan Communist Bloc led by Yugoslavia, a Maoist Bloc after the Sino-Soviet split that takes a stance against Bourgeois and Social Imperialism, an independent African Bloc fiercely defending their sovereignty from neo-colonialism, a more successful Nasserist/pan-Arab Bloc, etc.
 
OOC: I imagine that if the NAM (and possibly also the UN) were to develop some actual power and influence, it would ultimately develop some sort of ideological justification to hold the movement together and give them something to rally around in the name of "neither Washington nor Moscow". I Imagine it would contain a strong element of anti-colonialism and opposing neo-colonialism, as well as strong sense that countries should be free to choose their own paths on their own terms. I also think that a more successful NAM would be less of a power bloc in and of itself, and more a loose alliance of regional blocs with some interest in keeping the Yanks and the Soviets out of their business. So for example there would be an Independant Balkan Communist Bloc led by Yugoslavia, a Maoist Bloc after the Sino-Soviet split that takes a stance against Bourgeois and Social Imperialism, an independent African Bloc fiercely defending their sovereignty from neo-colonialism, a more successful Nasserist/pan-Arab Bloc, etc.

So, like a popular front?
 
A couple fairly easy ways to do this

First is the classic, the Cold War turns hot real early before the USSR has an effective capability to hit the US. USSR is destroyed, US has minor injuries, and there is no counterbalance

Two is that the US can avoid the economic stagnation of the 50's and 60's and the crisis in the 70's. Only reason the US didn't really win when the Soviets collapsed was that it was in no economic shape to weather the NAM's economic warfare intact, have the US grow half as fast as the world average from the 1950's to the 1970's and it would be the one splitting the NAM with economic pressure, rather than NATO and SEATO being split off

Third would be avoiding the Indian Industrial Miracle, absent that and there would be no source of first line military equipment outside the Warsaw Pact or NATO, which would give the Superpower Blocs extreme leverage
 
A couple fairly easy ways to do this

First is the classic, the Cold War turns hot real early before the USSR has an effective capability to hit the US. USSR is destroyed, US has minor injuries, and there is no counterbalance

Two is that the US can avoid the economic stagnation of the 50's and 60's and the crisis in the 70's. Only reason the US didn't really win when the Soviets collapsed was that it was in no economic shape to weather the NAM's economic warfare intact, have the US grow half as fast as the world average from the 1950's to the 1970's and it would be the one splitting the NAM with economic pressure, rather than NATO and SEATO being split off

Third would be avoiding the Indian Industrial Miracle, absent that and there would be no source of first line military equipment outside the Warsaw Pact or NATO, which would give the Superpower Blocs extreme leverage

OOC: It's probably easier to avoid the Korean War, have the nationalists win in China, and have China or Japan work their way in this role. The "Indian Industrial Miracle" is a very low probability outcome by itself let alone leading to the DBWI. Japan and China have an easier path as long as US Troops and US foreign policy dont continue to dominate them, which is less likely without Communist China and a Korean War.

I would put this DBWI in the ASB category. Technically it's not but its so unlikely that it might as well be.
 
What about both the Franco-American split and the Sino-Soviet split not occuring? After said splits China and France both joined the Non-aligned movement IIRC.
 
What about both the Franco-American split and the Sino-Soviet split not occuring? After said splits China and France both joined the Non-aligned movement IIRC.
Yeah. Maybe, if the NAM never won out, we would still have a Soviet-American hegemony over the world, rather than the current Indo-Chinese one. And maybe staunch capitalism or communism would be the dominant systems, rather than democratic-market socialism.
 

ben0628

Banned
Pan Africanism really helped the NAM.

If Africa didn't unify into the 5 regional nations we have today after decolonization, the area would have become a cold war battleground. The Maghreb Federation, the South African Commonwealth, the Republic of East Africa, the West African Confederation, and the Kingdom of Congo were all politically stable and economically strong enough to resist Western and Communist Imperialism (especially since Europe relied heavily on Maghreb oil, and theSouth African Commonwealth had nuclear weapons and one of the best arms industries in the world).

Another thing that could have doomed the NAM was if the West decided to go through with creating the nation of Israel. Had that happened, the middle East would not have been part of the NAM and would have probably sided with the Soviet Union.

Another thing that helped was the Republic of India wasn't separated by religion and the Hindus and Muslims in the country were forced to work together, the creating thus 3rd most powerful nation in the world and one of the true leaders of the NAM.
 
Is the French-dominated European Federation in your opinion the next superpower? It is right now the main unaligned "Kingmaker" in this world along with the State of Japan.
 
Meh, most of NAM are varying degrees of authoritarian, which makes their bleating about championing "freedom" for the Third World rather hypocritical.
 
Pan Africanism really helped the NAM.

If Africa didn't unify into the 5 regional nations we have today after decolonization, the area would have become a cold war battleground. The Maghreb Federation, the South African Commonwealth, the Republic of East Africa, the West African Confederation, and the Kingdom of Congo were all politically stable and economically strong enough to resist Western and Communist Imperialism (especially since Europe relied heavily on Maghreb oil, and theSouth African Commonwealth had nuclear weapons and one of the best arms industries in the world).

OOC: How did Congo end up as a Kingdom?
 
Kingdom is just the official name. In reality it's a dynastic dictatorship ran by the Mobutu family.
OOC: How does having Mobutu in charge help it become a stable and prosperous state? The man is the poster boy for corrupt kleptocrats kowtowing to the West. Surley a better choice would have been to have Lumumba survive and unite the Congo with the backing of the Hammarskjöld and the UN (which helps establish a more active UN), and then form a union with neighbouring Fancophone states. That way you end up with a decent power bloc in central Africa that is fiercely independent and sitting on top of immense material wealth.
 
Top