Oil crisis end to Cold War.

I just an idea and it's unformed as yet, so feel free to kick it into shape.

The 1973 oil crisis gave the faltering Soviet Union a handy boost due to the foreign currency it recieved from oil sales at high prices. This covered the fundemantal economic failings of the Soviet systems and kept the Cold War perking along for another 15 or more years.

What if this was recognised in say 1974 and was siezed upon as a lever to end the Cold War? As we know there are dozens of ways to reduce energy consumption. WI the US govt from 1974 actively persued policies which would reduce the US consumption of oil so to keep the price down and not let the Soiviets get the injection of foriegn currency? Would the Cold War drag on until 1989-91 or could the impoverished Soviets end it 10 years earlier?
 
The US did, from 1977 (at least) to early 1981. Perhaps if Carter had been more aggressive in cutting US energy use? (And, if he had abandoned the Carter Doctrine (and FDR's earlier promises to the Saudis), we would most definitely not be in the Iraq & Afghanistan messes we were in!) Alternatively, had TMI not happened, nuclear energy would likely have grown- after all Carter ran nukes in the navy...
 
Because it would take a lot of legislative changes to get a sublte but massive social change, it'd take a lot more than one President doing more. I think it would take a large, powerful faction in Congress and the Senate and the cooperation of influential states.
 
I think what you need is for the 1973 oil crisis to not happen. Oil prices were amazingly low, about $3 a barrel, before the 1973 Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War, and they quadrupled to about $12 a barrel afterwards as OPEC flexed its monopoly muscles in reaction to US aid to Israel. Prevent the war, keep prices under $5 a barrel, and keep the crop failures of the mid-1970s that sent the Soviet Union into the international market to buy wheat. No high oil price equals no foreign exchange to buy food equals ???

Of course, there's always the possibility that it forces the Politburo to consider starting its own war to divert attention from internal problems, a la Clancy's Red Storm Rising.
 
All of this has to take into consideration the hollow army of the mid and late 70's. After Vietnam, the army was in no real condition to fight a war and everyone, including the Russians knew this.

You've got to figure out a way to intimidate the Russians into not getting feisty.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Its always mystified me that the hardliners did not demand an attack on NATO in the mid 70's when it was very much conventionally dead. NATO would have had to have gone nuclear very early, which the Russian Hardliners did not fear, and things would have blown up all over.
 
Its always mystified me that the hardliners did not demand an attack on NATO in the mid 70's when it was very much conventionally dead. NATO would have had to have gone nuclear very early, which the Russian Hardliners did not fear, and things would have blown up all over.

What? In 1970's NATO was much alive and well, the US component did have some moral problems but one should not confuse cold war NATO with USA.
 
THis is an interesting POD, and it could happen. How do we get rid of the 1973 war? I suppose Carter being more successful could work too, but that seems more difficult. Although, an easy fun POD would be the Iranian hostage resuce succeding, giving Carter MASSIVE political capital to start oil reform of some sort.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Jukra do some research on NATO in the mid 70s. I have talked with many veterans who were in Europe in the 70s and virtually to a man they said our army was in bad shape. You m ight want to read Hacketts WW3 book- while fiction the man who wrote it was there and knew. The BAOR had no reserves; Northag especially was weak. Our Air Force had used up a lot of parts and such in Vietnam, many of which were drawn from Europe. It took years to replace them and the Defense budget was stagnant until Carters last year.
 
Jukra do some research on NATO in the mid 70s. I have talked with many veterans who were in Europe in the 70s and virtually to a man they said our army was in bad shape. You m ight want to read Hacketts WW3 book- while fiction the man who wrote it was there and knew. The BAOR had no reserves; Northag especially was weak. Our Air Force had used up a lot of parts and such in Vietnam, many of which were drawn from Europe. It took years to replace them and the Defense budget was stagnant until Carters last year.

Yet the NATO was numerically and qualitetively superior to Warsaw Pact. The Bundeswehr had twelve splendily equipped mechanized divisions, complete with latest gear, for starters. The Dutch and Belgian armies of mid 1970's were in good shape, as was the BAOR with modern equipment. Arsenals of European armies were bristling with ATGM's. While WP was using towed artillery, the NATO armies had mostly equipped themselves with SP artillery. At sea, WP never had any chance. The list is endless. NATO was massively superior to WP in conventional forces from early 1960's onwards and never lost the lead. One should not confuse with budget rhetorics of the era with the facts.
 
I was looking to kill several birds with one stone; ending the Cold War, reducing the power of OPEC, avoiding the bullshit in the Mid East, a more environmentally sound US, peak oil mitigation.
 
Top