Non-ideological Cold War

[DominusNovus]

Suppose that, at the end of WW2, Russia is not a communist state. Perhaps at some point between the rise of Hitler and the end of the war, some non-ideologically communist, but still authoritarian, faction takes control. Maybe they’re nationalists, maybe even some variety of fascist (think Franco’s Spain), but they still end up at war with Germany more or less on schedule, and the course of the war goes the same, with the same map afterward.

However, they’re still a natural geopolitical rival to the US, and relations worsen to the point of an alt-Cold War defining the period. But what does this Cold War look like, if the Russians aren’t trying to spread communism?

 

[N7Buck]

Suppose that, at the end of WW2, Russia is not a communist state. Perhaps at some point between the rise of Hitler and the end of the war, some non-ideologically communist, but still authoritarian, faction takes control. Maybe they’re nationalists, maybe even some variety of fascist (think Franco’s Spain), but they still end up at war with Germany more or less on schedule, and the course of the war goes the same, with the same map afterward.

However, they’re still a natural geopolitical rival to the US, and relations worsen to the point of an alt-Cold War defining the period. But what does this Cold War look like, if the Russians aren’t trying to spread communism?

The USSR was nationalist, so was every Communist state. So I guess you mean a typical non-socialist authoritarian state.

 

[DominusNovus]

The USSR was nationalist, so was every Communist state. So I guess you mean a typical non-socialist authoritarian state.

Correct

 

[overoceans]

In this scenario, are the Russians allowed to advance ANY ideological critique of the West? Or are they just trying to score raw geopolitical points, without making any claim to having a morally superior way of doing things?

Because it's kind of hard to imagine the latter. Throughout history, almost anyone who wanted to make their nation the top dog has made some argument about why their system was the best and should be adopted by everyone.

So, assuming the former...

Remember the Asian Values thing in the 1990s, where political systems like Singapore and Dengist China got talked up as superior to the supposedly decadent West? You'd probably see your non-Communist authoritarian Russia engaged in that sort of rhetoric. And while they wouldn't promote Communism or even socialism, they'd likely claim to have a more centrally-directed, better-managed form of capitalism.

 

[Snowstalker]

You've just reinvented regular great power rivalries.

 

[DominusNovus]

You've just reinvented regular great power rivalries.

That is pretty much what I am looking for.

 

[Chris Nation]

You've just reinvented regular great power rivalries.

Yes, but there was always an ideological component to these as well.

England vs Spain was Protestant vs Catholic
Britain vs Louis' France was the same, with a hint of Whiggishness
Britain vs Revolutionary France and Napoleon was "the frogs have gone stark raving mad and need to be put back in their place"
Britain vs Imperial Germany was "Jerry is dictatorial and cruel and unenlightened"

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Suppose that, at the end of WW2, Russia is not a communist state. Perhaps at some point between the rise of Hitler and the end of the war, some non-ideologically communist, but still authoritarian, faction takes control. Maybe they’re nationalists, maybe even some variety of fascist (think Franco’s Spain), but they still end up at war with Germany more or less on schedule, and the course of the war goes the same, with the same map afterward.

However, they’re still a natural geopolitical rival to the US, and relations worsen to the point of an alt-Cold War defining the period. But what does this Cold War look like, if the Russians aren’t trying to spread communism?

If there aren't fears of them spreading some sort of authoritarian ideology you're not going to have a cold war, just a normal rivalry as has been said. Assuming they're either trying to spread an authoritarian (non-left-wing) ideology, the CIA definitely doesn't instigate the Pinochet coup. There's a good chance, though it's not certain, that the Iranian coup gets butterflied away as well. Much of the rest depends on what Russia is doing. The CIA probably wouldn't be organizing right-wing guerillas in Latin America, but other than that US policy in Latin America would probably depend on Russian policy toward the region. If Russia's just sitting there Francoist style (presumably with OTL Warsaw Pact) but doesn't do much to expand the reach of that ideology (again Francoist style) then you might even see a continuation of FDR's Good Neighbor policy. If they try to influence Latin America, expect the CIA to support opposing factions.

If the United States is going to get directly involved militarily in any of those conflicts, you're going to have use at least some ideological component to convince the American public. Not even the "how dare you question your government" Vietnam-era jingos are going to want to send their sons to die because some country decided to get its steel from Russia instead of Pennsylvania. I think the smallest amount of ideology you can get and still have direct American military intervention in a proxy war is a "rights of small nations" situation, where a Russian ally invades a neighbor.

 

[PleistoceneWanderer]

I wonder how such a scenario would affect China, would they rise up to rival them both?

 

[TimTurner]

Great power rivalries are driven by the needs of states and/or governments first and positioning among left-right spectrum (to the extent it could be argued to be something coherent in this context) second.