Five Ways the USSR could have won the Cold War

There was an interesting article in National Interest about how the USSR might have won the cold war.
This might be of more than passing interest to folks here.

If this isn't the correct forum, please ask the mods to move this thread.

Summarizing the five points:

1/ Stalin doesn't purge all the people with initiative in the late 30s.
2/ Truman pulls US troops out of Europe after WWII allowing the Iron curtain to advance westwards.
3/ A quick strike across Western Europe in the 70s.
4/ Not invading Afghanistan or supporting various third world regimes.
5/ Gorbachev does Tiananmen Square.

My own take on this is that all of these make it difficult for the USSR to win the cold war, but they might get the better side of a draw.

1/ Undoubtedly Stalin's purges of all the top military people left the USSR bereft of good leadership in 1941. It might still have taken a Napoleon to defeat the Germans that year, but they might have been halted sooner, and with better generalship the red army would not have taken so many casualties. Similarly, less occupied ground would mean less civilian deaths. It might also mean less overextension, and better German defense later in the war. All in all, it might shift the occupation zones a little bit, but that might be about all.

2/ Is probably the best bet for a USSR win. However, if communists take control in Greece and Italy, I can't see the Americans staying across the pond at the prospect of all of continental Europe falling under a potentially hostile power. That's why they just fought WWII.
Even if we get the less likely outcome of a communist dominated Eurasia, leaving a US led rump Oceania, absent Marshall aid, European industrial recovery would be much slower. Collectivised agriculture was a disaster. Note that nearly all net food exporting countries are in this Oceania.

3/ A mid 70s dash is a huge gamble for the USSR. By this time, there are a large number of missile warheads. If the NATO armies can't keep back the red army, then tactical nukes are likely. There is no guarantee this wouldn't escalate.

4 and 5/ The last two don't seem to me about winning the cold war, as much as preserving the USSR, which is a different question. The USSR certainly had little to gain by invading Afghanistan, next door to US-allied Pakistan. It doesn't have any coastline, and it would have been more sensible to keep it as a war-torn buffer state. But Brezhnev had his doctrine, and doubled down on backing the Afghan government. The other USSR-aligned states in Africa, the middle east, and even the Caribbean were all money drains. The ideal solution would have been to provoke more American invasions.
Could Gorbachev have pulled a Tiananmen after letting eastern Europe loose? That probably wasn't in his character, but let's say he orders the tanks in and crushes domestic opposition? He's still got an embittered cynical population, and if the economy continues to deteriorate, he's only postponed another showdown. China managed the crackdown on the back of rapid industrialization and improving living standards. The USSR probably could not offer this.

Regards

R
 
Last edited:

SpamBotSam

Banned
There was an interesting article in National Interest about how the USSR might have won the cold war.
This might be of more than passing interest to folks here.

If this isn't the correct forum, please ask the mods to move this thread.

Summarizing the five points:

1/ Stalin doesn't purge all the people with initiative in the late 30s.
2/ Truman pulls US troops out of Europe after WWII allowing the Iron curtain to advance westwards.
3/ A quick strike across Western Europe in the 70s.
4/ Not invading Afghanistan or supporting various third world regimes.
5/ Gorbachev does Tiananmen Square.

My own take on this is that all of these make it difficult for the USSR to win the cold war, but they might get the better side of a draw.

1/ Undoubtedly Stalin's purges of all the top military people left the USSR bereft of good leadership in 1941. It might still have taken a Napoleon to defeat the Germans that year, but they might have been halted sooner, and with better generalship the red army would not have taken so many casualties. Similarly, less occupied ground would mean less civilian deaths. It might also mean less overextension, and better German defense later in the war. All in all, it might shift the occupation zones a little bit, but that might be about all.

2/ Is probably the best bet for a USSR win. However, if communists take control in Greece and Italy, I can't see the Americans staying across the pond at the prospect of all of continental Europe falling under a potentially hostile power. That's why they just fought WWII.
Even if we get the less likely outcome of a communist dominated Eurasia, leaving a US led rump Oceania, absent Marshall aid, European industrial recovery would be much slower. Collectivised agriculture was a disaster. Note that nearly all net food exporting countries are in this Oceania.

3/ A mid 70s dash is a huge gamble for the USSR. By this time, there are a large number of missile warheads. If the NATO armies can't keep back the red army, then tactical nukes are likely. There is no guarantee this wouldn't escalate.

4 and 5/ The last two don't seem to me about winning the cold war, as much as preserving the USSR, which is a different question. The USSR certainly had little to gain by invading Afghanistan, next door to US-allied Pakistan. It doesn't have any coastline, and it would have been more sensible to keep it as a war-torn buffer state. But Brezhnev had his doctrine, and doubled down on backing the Afghan government. The other USSR-aligned states in Africa, the middle east, and even the Caribbean were all money drains. The ideal solution would have been to provoke more American invasions.
Could Gorbachev have pulled a Tiananmen after letting eastern Europe loose? That probably wasn't in his character, but let's say he orders the tanks in and crushes domestic opposition? He's still got an embittered cynical population, and if the economy continues to deteriorate, he's only postponed another showdown. China managed the crackdown on the back of rapid industrialization and improving living standards. The USSR probably could not offer this.

Regards

R

How would you define "winning the cold war". The USSR simply doesn't fall, or they spread communism all around the world?
 
There was an interesting article in National Interest about how the USSR might have won the cold war.
This might be of more than passing interest to folks here.

If this isn't the correct forum, please ask the mods to move this thread.

Summarizing the five points:

1/ Stalin doesn't purge all the people with initiative in the late 30s.
2/ Truman pulls US troops out of Europe after WWII allowing the Iron curtain to advance westwards.
3/ A quick strike across Western Europe in the 70s.
4/ Not invading Afghanistan or supporting various third world regimes.
5/ Gorbachev does Tiananmen Square.

My own take on this is that all of these make it difficult for the USSR to win the cold war, but they might get the better side of a draw.

1/ Undoubtedly Stalin's purges of all the top military people left the USSR bereft of good leadership in 1941. It might still have taken a Napoleon to defeat the Germans that year, but they might have been halted sooner, and with better generalship the red army would not have taken so many casualties. Similarly, less occupied ground would mean less civilian deaths. It might also mean less overextension, and better German defense later in the war. All in all, it might shift the occupation zones a little bit, but that might be about all.

2/ Is probably the best bet for a USSR win. However, if communists take control in Greece and Italy, I can't see the Americans staying across the pond at the prospect of all of continental Europe falling under a potentially hostile power. That's why they just fought WWII.
Even if we get the less likely outcome of a communist dominated Eurasia, leaving a US led rump Oceania, absent Marshall aid, European industrial recovery would be much slower. Collectivised agriculture was a disaster. Note that nearly all net food exporting countries are in this Oceania.

3/ A mid 70s dash is a huge gamble for the USSR. By this time, there are a large number of missile warheads. If the NATO armies can't keep back the red army, then tactical nukes are likely. There is no guarantee this wouldn't escalate.

4 and 5/ The last two don't seem to me about winning the cold war, as much as preserving the USSR, which is a different question. The USSR certainly had little to gain by invading Afghanistan, next door to US-allied Pakistan. It doesn't have any coastline, and it would have been more sensible to keep it as a war-torn buffer state. But Brezhnev had his doctrine, and doubled down on backing the Afghan government. The other USSR-aligned states in Africa, the middle east, and even the Caribbean were all money drains. The ideal solution would have been to provoke more American invasions.
Could Gorbachev have pulled a Tiananmen after letting eastern Europe loose? That probably wasn't in his character, but let's say he orders the tanks in and crushes domestic opposition? He's still got an embittered cynical population, and if the economy continues to deteriorate, he's only postponed another showdown. China managed the crackdown on the back of rapid industrialization and improving living standards. The USSR probably could not offer this.

Regards

R

2) Truman pulled so many troops out of Europe so quickly that he effectively did just that. The iron curtain didnt advance because of things like the Marshall Plan and not because of occupation.

1) Everyone focuses on the military purges. But Georgi Arbatov made the point that Stalin's biggest mistake was cursing the USSR with a generation of horrible political leaders. Whether it was because he killed all the competent leaders or because everyone was afraid to challenge the system, the people who rose to the top were largely sycophants and ideologues with no real talent or abilities. Hence Brezhnev, Chernenko, Shelepin, Podgorny, Malenkov, etc.

3) Completely out of character for Brezhnev and the Politburo at that time. A bunch of old men more worried about their pensions than anything else.

The only way for communism to win the cold war was for their economies to exceed that of the capitalist countries. As long as people were aware that one side had a better standard of living than the other, the weaker side was facing an existential crisis.

Read Arbatov's "The System". Interesting take on Soviet leadership from Stalin to Gorbachev.
 
Top