P.C.: America loses the Cold War?

Earlier today, I was mulling over the idea of a 2018 in which the United States lost the Cold War, and this thread gave me the "missing link" I needed...

How plausible is the following scenario?

Instead of the Vietnam War, the United States military becomes embroiled in the Congo Crisis. The (disastrous) fighting in Africa severely inflames domestic racial tension, and the the civil unrest of the 1960s is much worse than OTL. The American government cracks down hard to restore "law and order" to the country. As a result of this repression, by the end of the 20th Century the U.S.S.R. is more stable and prosperous than the United States, which have stagnated and become something of an international pariah.
 
Instead of the Vietnam War, the United States military becomes embroiled in the Congo Crisis. The (disastrous) fighting in Africa severely inflames domestic racial tension, and the the civil unrest of the 1960s is much worse than OTL. The American government cracks down hard to restore "law and order" to the country. As a result of this repression, by the end of the 20th Century the U.S.S.R. is more stable and prosperous than the United States, which have stagnated and become something of an international pariah.
US is too big to become an international pariah unless it does something like genocide or expel its black population even than it won't keep that status to the end of 20th century. it doesn't matter what the United States does the Soviet Union's economic problems are going to kill it at some point.
 
US is too big to become an international pariah unless it does something like genocide or expel its black population even than it won't keep that status to the end of 20th century. it doesn't matter what the United States does the Soviet Union's economic problems are going to kill it at some point.

While the USSR had economic problems it was stronger economically by every measure than the Russian Federation, especially in the Yeltsin era. It's collapse was due to an elite developing (the future oligarchs) that wanted to enjoy wealth on a Western scale at the expense of the vast majority of people.
 
It's more likely that you see the US and USSR both degenerate. Say the Volker experiment never is tried and 3rd world unstable stagflation becomes the name of the US game.

Soviet Perestroika MIGHT work better as a look to the Europeans rather than the Americans approach.

If things degenerate in the 1970s, then you eventually get an EU that takes more of the yoke and emerges as the superpower, more for economic than military reasons.

If the West falters in the 1950s-early 1960s and the Soviets make some reforms, then it's possible the USSR develops into a stable system, maybe.
 
Earlier today, I was mulling over the idea of a 2018 in which the United States lost the Cold War, and this thread gave me the "missing link" I needed...

How plausible is the following scenario?

Instead of the Vietnam War, the United States military becomes embroiled in the Congo Crisis. The (disastrous) fighting in Africa severely inflames domestic racial tension, and the the civil unrest of the 1960s is much worse than OTL. The American government cracks down hard to restore "law and order" to the country. As a result of this repression, by the end of the 20th Century the U.S.S.R. is more stable and prosperous than the United States, which have stagnated and become something of an international pariah.
i could see that, so it would probably go something like this

*Korea is unified under glorious Communism, and helps the Communists in Vietnam
*No Sino-Soviet split occurs because hardliners stay in power in the USSR, leading to a more unified, hardline Communist front
*someone other than pre-southern strategy Nixon or Kennedy is elected who gets the nation in the Congo and deteriorates race relations (perhaps a stronger states rights ticket than in ‘48 throws the election to Congress and somehow gets the presidency through a coalition of southern dems and conservative Republicans (that’s probably a bit unrealistic, so maybe Nixon dies before ‘60 and some other Republican, who’s more conservative and racist becomes president)
*there’s no CRA of 1964 or 1965 and MLK is killed earlier, leading to lots of racial unrest (there could be much stronger versions of the NoI and the BPP)
*the ‘60, ‘64, or ‘68 elections (or all of them) become endlessly deadlocked, leading to more political unrest
*by 1970, a massive economic recession occurs in the US (not hard to believe with all the above happening), which shakes people’s belief in Communism
*War breaks out in Germany, which isn’t good when the US is suffering through all that I’ve mentioned, plus their destructive war in the Congo, plus, a lot of Asia is going red, so things aren’t the best for the US, and they lose Germany
*Things are still bad for the Soviets economically, but at least they’re not suffering a near-civil war, so that’s a thing
*In 1972, some bright reformer with a plan for civil rights and to reform our economy is elected (maybe McGovern, JFK, or Ralphie). Unfortunately for him, he’s killed by a klansman, and his VP is kinda useless and gets nothing done
*The Assassination of a pro-Civil Rights reformer as president basically leads to a war between a more radical version of the BPP, and the KKK, so that’s fun.
*So obviously separatist movements are popping up in all the traditional areas (California, the South, Florida, New England, Cascadia, Texas, Hawaii, Alaska the Superior part Michigan wanting to become part of Ontario for some reason...), some of which are more violent than others, so with America on the verge of civil war, the 1976 elections happen. With so many regional parties, no one gets a majority, but no one really gives a fuck, so the speaker becomes president after getting elected by a coalition of Regionalist parties. With this, he authorizes Independence referendums in California (+NV), Oregon, Washington, Texas, NY, the region of New England (+LI), the Former CSA (+MO, KY, WV -FL, TX) Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, the proposed state of Lakota, Texas (+OK), Utah as Deseret. All of them leave the US. With this, the remaining states try to reform the old US, but they fail, with Arizona and New Mexico even getting taken by the Socialist Republic of Mexico. Eventually, the old US falls apart, and the former states either become unstable nations or are fought over by other NA nations
*After the US falls and North America is reduced to inter-continental war, the USSR finally wins, before collapsing due to economic issues that have plagued it for years in 1996.
*Following the fall of the USSR, a new world power emerges in California, but we’ll get to that later.
 
While the USSR had economic problems it was stronger economically by every measure than the Russian Federation, especially in the Yeltsin era. It's collapse was due to an elite developing (the future oligarchs) that wanted to enjoy wealth on a Western scale at the expense of the vast majority of people.

It's collapse was due to its economy being dependent upon oil for currency reserves, excess military spending (beyond Afghanistan but in general), underinvestment in a variety of industries, horrible corruption, and a complete inability to reform it while retaining its communist identity.
 
Dugout Doug wins in '52 and pulls a Trump. Big military, bad economics, and concentration of power in the hands of a few creating an inability to adapt.
 
You need the Soviet Union to do better as well-maybe market reforms that segue into Chinese-style market authoritarianism, or a loosening a la the Prague Spring or earlyish shift of the Warsaw pact into freer association?
 
The how and the why really do matter. Then, the when matters. Then, there's asking what constitutes a defeat? An exact parallel situation is implausible because of the fundamental differences in culture and organization of the two then-superpowers.
 
I guess I was primarily concerned with how the United States could have screwed themselves domestically to the point where they lag behind the Soviets in soft and hard power (in the latter case, at least in terms of military power projection outside of the Western Hemisphere - i.e. there could still be a Monroe Doctrine but no N.A.T.O.). To make it clearer, I'm wondering if it was somehow possible that post-WWII, the U.S.S.R. could successfully reform and come out on top of the "world stage" while the U.S. struggled and fell behind. It seemed to me the best way to do accomplish the latter was to have the U.S. become more actively authoritarian and repressive than OTL - I didn't put much thought into the Soviet side of things because I'm relatively ignorant of their history (though from my understanding, by some point in the 1960s they were too much of an economic and political basket case to survive in the long run). I'm open to the idea of Soviet reform, but I don't know if that was actually possible by the mid-20th century, by the point where there was a recognizable "Cold War" as we know it.
 
Last edited:
Top