Libya joins the warsaw pact 1980

Khanzeer

Banned
WI Gaddafi announces in 1980 his disappointment with arab countries in not doing much to punish Egypt after its restoring relations with Israel.
He reaffirms his faith in socialism and applauds USSR help in fighting colonialism and supporting African wars liberation.As a show of gratitude he declares his decision to join warsaw pact.
How will this impact regional and international politics?
 
The Soviets do not seem to have wanted to expand the Warsaw Pact beyond eastern Europe. When Mongolia applied for membership in 1963, it was turned down. See the letter of Polish Foreign Minister Rapacki turning down the request. http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/kms2.isn...487b-a947-48e870070c8e/en/memo_630720_Eng.pdf Part of the reason is that even though Mongolia gave the threat from the US and a remilitarizing Japan as its reason for applying, everyone knew that the move had anti-Chinese implications. As Rapacki writes, "The acceptance of Mongolia into the Warsaw Pact at this time will of course be discerned both in the socialist states of Asia and in the West as a step whose thrust is directed against the PRC.." But Rapacki also specifically says

"The Warsaw Pact is a pact of the European socialist states directed against imperialist activities in Europe ([see] the preamble — attached) and providing for an automatic military reaction by the participants in the event of aggression in Europe (art. 4). These provisions of the Treaty would have to be changed. The very political scope and character of the Treaty would have to be changed. Such a basic change of the Warsaw Pact would have an unmistakable and serious meaning, because it would lead to an actual transformation of the alliance into a general security pact for the socialist camp with the participation of all the states of the camp. Against the backdrop of the particular policy of the PRC, such a solution is unrealistic. If it is, such a change in the character of the Treaty would be more likely to weaken the anti-imperialist activity of the Treaty in Europe than to strengthen it in Asia..."

I doubt very much that Rapacki would have written this without consulting the Soviets. And note that Cuba also never joined the Warsaw Pact; nor did avowedly Marxist-Leninist nations like South Yemen, Ethiopia, etc.

And even if f the USSR was inclined to let an African or Asian nation into the Warsaw Pact, the last thing it would want would be a Libya under as mercurial a leader as Gaddafi as a member, with an automatic commitment to defend his regime in case of war. Gaddafi did in fact express a willingness to join the Warsaw Pact, but neither the Soviets not anyone else took that seriously. "Soviet caution has been even more evident in the diplomatic field. Moscow has stalled a Libyan request for a treaty of friendship and co-operation similar to one the USSR had signed with Syria, has not taken seriously Gaddafi's declared willingness to have Libya join the Warsaw Pact, and has always refrained from establishing such tight military and political links as could eventually involve it in a confrontation with the United States. The USSR appears weary of Gaddafi's unpredictability in foreign policy, of Libya's alleged role in sponsoring international terrorism, and of its substantial isolation in the Arab world and in the Non-Aligned Movement..." https://books.google.com/books?id=rjSvCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA200
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
^^^
Thanks but stranger things have happened in OTL and libya has far more resources to share than mongolia plus if it's part of WP that is an excuse to base a lot of soviet troops there to steady the mercurial gaddafi whose tiny manpower forces can easily be controlled on a tight leash by say 80k WP advisors
And this gives Soviets a chance to cooperate more with regional allies like Algeria, sway sudan into socialist fold and be within a striking distance of Suez canal.
 
^^^
Thanks but stranger things have happened in OTL and libya has far more resources to share than mongolia plus if it's part of WP that is an excuse to base a lot of soviet troops there to steady the mercurial gaddafi whose tiny manpower forces can easily be controlled on a tight leash by say 80k WP advisors
And this gives Soviets a chance to cooperate more with regional allies like Algeria, sway sudan into socialist fold and be within a striking distance of Suez canal.
Stranger things have happened in OTL, but this was not one of them. I think DavidT laid out a lot of good reasons why Libya joining the Warsaw Pact was unfeasible. Qadaffi was an occasional useful idiot for the Kremlin, nothing more.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Stranger things have happened in OTL, but this was not one of them. I think DavidT laid out a lot of good reasons why Libya joining the Warsaw Pact was unfeasible. Qadaffi was an occasional useful idiot for the Kremlin, nothing more.
yes that is why it's "alternate history"

Gaddafi was a rich spendthrift friend whose resources may have been far easier to control and exploit once soviets have a much larger footprint there.DavidT gave some great reasons I'm not doubting that but we can speculate what would have happened if he did.How can Moscow take his irrational impulses and make the best use of them to shore up its faltering image in the middle east
 
yes that is why it's "alternate history"

Gaddafi was a rich spendthrift friend whose resources may have been far easier to control and exploit once soviets have a much larger footprint there.DavidT gave some great reasons I'm not doubting that but we can speculate what would have happened if he did.How can Moscow take his irrational impulses and make the best use of them to shore up its faltering image in the middle east

Alternate History does not mean handwaving away the impossible or the unlikely. You'd need a whole different Libyan leader, someone less erratic and personality driven as Qaddafi. That'd create a wave of butterflies that would significantly alter the world. Libya could join the Warsaw Pact, sure, but not under Qaddafi.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Alternate History does not mean handwaving away the impossible or the unlikely. You'd need a whole different Libyan leader, someone less erratic and personality driven as Qaddafi. That'd create a wave of butterflies that would significantly alter the world. Libya could join the Warsaw Pact, sure, but not under Qaddafi.
Why would libya join WP under a sane rational leader ? It would be more like a morroco otherwise
We debate unlikely events here all the time , don't we ? Impossible is like what ASB ? if you think so and others too we can move the thread there
 
Why would libya join WP under a sane rational leader ? It would be more like a morroco otherwise
We debate unlikely events here all the time , don't we ? Impossible is like what ASB ? if you think so and others too we can move the thread there

It's not so much that it's ASB, just *extremely* unlikely given the personalities involved.

As several posters have noted, Gadhaffi was extremely unpredictable, narcissistic (think Trump, only dialed up to 11), possibly mentally unstable, and quite non-Marxist (though he did claim to be a weird mish mash "third way Islamic Socialist"). The Warsaw Pact by contrast, was clearly meant for those states in Eastern Europe who followed the Soviet line on Marxist Leninist ideology.

The second important point to note is that since the Cuban Missile Crisis, all Soviet leaders were extremely cautious. They did not want to get into a direct confrontation with the West and risk WW III. They certainly weren't going to risk it over a non Communist like Gadhafi.

For this to happen, you'll need a POD where Gadhafi is a more conventional and predictable third world socialist dictator (like Assad Sr. or Nasser). Or you'd need a Soviet leadership that is considerably more willing to take risks than Leonid Brezhnev (and as noted, also one willing to expand the Warsaw Pact far beyond its original mandate).

Neither one is ASB, just extremely highly unlikely
 
Assuming the leaders of WarPac had a collective stroke and let Gaddafi in, he'd be a major source of headaches since day one. Libya has been known to support and arm the IRA, something Britain considers a direct breach of its internal security. Furthermore, Libya would have constant issues and PR headaches with its neighbors that would make WarPac regret ever bringing him in.

Take for example, the Chadian conflict, which was ongoing at the time Libya hypothetically applies. Muammar would run wailing to WarPac to intervene the moment the war turns against him (if it hasn't already), and WarPac would point out he brought it upon himself by being an idiot and an asshole. He sulks, makes a proclamation to the effect of "We're leaving WarPac, nyah nyah" and then withdraws it when he draws the ire of the US.

Or how about the Lockerbie incident? Does the USSR insist on defending the lunatic who caused the incident?

Gaddafi has a habit of shooting off his mouth, doing something stupid, and then caving in when someone kicks his ass over it. Does the USSR really need an ally like that? They'd reach for any clause that would allow them to kick Libya out.

Plus, as has been pointed out, WarPac was clearly an Eastern European outfit, designed as a buffer against NATO. Reaching out into Africa would throw off its logistics and political setup. I mean, Cuba and Mongolia weren't admitted in, for example, neither was North Korea - then again, Kim Il Sung was just as nuts as Gaddafi.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Ok if you guys insist no WP
let's go with treaty of military assistance signed in early 80s between Gaddafi and USSR
How can Soviets use Gaddafi to their advantage rather than become a victim of his eccentricities and impulsiveness
 
WI Gaddafi announces in 1980 his disappointment with arab countries in not doing much to punish Egypt after its restoring relations with Israel.
He reaffirms his faith in socialism and applauds USSR help in fighting colonialism and supporting African wars liberation.As a show of gratitude he declares his decision to join warsaw pact.
How will this impact regional and international politics?
When Gadaffi invades Chad he can not hope for Warsaw Pact assistance.
 
Perhaps if Algeria was still part of France in 1980, and there were no huge butterflies caused by this, the Warsaw Pact accepts Libya as a member to counterbalance NATO influence in North Africa/Western Med?
 
Perhaps if Algeria was still part of France in 1980, and there were no huge butterflies caused by this, the Warsaw Pact accepts Libya as a member to counterbalance NATO influence in North Africa/Western Med?
That would make things even more unlikely.Libya is right next to Algeria and a fellow Arab nation meaning high levels of support for the FLN along with a base of operations, which would in turn likely lead to French retaliation. Libya joining Warsaw pact in this scenario, would lead to a high risk of escalation which is something Soviet leadership wants to avoid.Also there little need to counter French Algeria as the war there was bogging down a massive number of French troop and longer goes on, the more French troops would be required as the Algerian population gets larger.
 
Egypt swings firmly into the pro Western camp and a Libya denuded of western oil investment to keep the oilfields open and productive collapses into tribal warfare. Unless you can sell the oil to someone with money its not much use. And Godless commies and Islam don't mix well for long.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Egypt swings firmly into the pro Western camp and a Libya denuded of western oil investment to keep the oilfields open and productive collapses into tribal warfare. Unless you can sell the oil to someone with money its not much use. And Godless commies and Islam don't mix well for long.
Egypt was isolated from muslim world by 1981 , maybe libya can leverage that and with the additional military muscle of USSR attempt to make Egypt unstable politically.
Israel will probably not lift a finger to support Egyptians ( nor should they)
US may increase arms sales to them but other than that what else can be done ?
 
Top