PC: Cold War with a smaller Soviet Union?

[Ultima Ratio]

Scenario: for some reason, the Soviet Army advances to the West much slower due to worse performance, etc, and after WW2 the Iron Curtain is on the OTL Soviet border, more or less. So Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania go to the Western block, there is little or no Warsaw Pact. Coupled with this, the KMT wins the Chinese Civil War and becomes a full US ally, slowly democratizing over the years.

In a situation like this, would there still be a Cold War? Or would Stalin just try to avoid any confrontation with the West and the KMT? How much would their nuclear program be delayed and could they support any proxy wars anywhere?

 

[raharris1973]

In a situation like this, would there still be a Cold War?

No. There would be Soviet-US tension and mutual suspicion on many issues, but the Soviet Union would be seen as less "on the march" and threatening.

Also, without the threat of an advancing Soviet bloc, the U.S. has much more room to get into disagreements with the British, French, Dutch and others on the pace of decolonization and the opening of European markets. The U.S. will also likely be more stingy with Marshall Plan aid.

Or would Stalin just try to avoid any confrontation with the West and the KMT?

He will try to have his cake and eat it too. Perform diplomacy with Americans, Europeans and ChiNats, and seek aid and trade from those with money, while trying to ramp up domestic paranoia about foreign imperialist influences to justify tight controls postwar.

How much would their nuclear program be delayed

Probably just 3-5 years at max. They'd lack for captured German scientists and German and Czech uranium, but their domestic industrial and scientific base is still substantial and they'd be seeking to maximize knowledge gained from espionage.

could they support any proxy wars anywhere?

Sure- Iran comes to mind. Possibly Israel. Still, not a lot during Stalin's lifetime. But, as the process and struggles of decolonization occur, the opportunities to get involved further afield will increase for the USSR. Where it can make use of anti-imperialism as a foreign policy tool, the Soviet Union will.

Also, Moscow will seek to have Communist minorities in the parliaments of democracies like France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Germany, Greece, Bulgaria and more be helpful in neutralizing perceived threats to the Soviet Union and enhancing Soviet interests.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

If the Soviet Army is in that much worse shape in the west, then they are likely not in a position to pull off August Storm before Japan surrenders (probably after more 1-3 nukes, some extra firebombing, bombardments and sliding closer to starvation), so Korea is probably not divided as well, and providing a reason why the Chinese Communists lose (no getting Manchuria and captured Japanese arms stocks handed to them on a platter)

 

[lukedalton]

If the Soviet Army is in that much worse shape in the west, then they are likely not in a position to pull off August Storm before Japan surrenders (probably after more 1-3 nukes, some extra firebombing, bombardments and sliding closer to starvation), so Korea is probably not divided as well, and providing a reason why the Chinese Communists lose (no getting Manchuria and captured Japanese arms stocks handed to them on a platter)

Not considering that without the massive looting of east europe (Germany included) the URSS will be in a much worse shape than OTL

 

[MichaelWest]

Would you consider a further back POD? If the Central Powers had not lost the war, not saying they win it, merely not suffer a full defeat, and Ukraine remains independent, the Russian Civil War still a success perhaps as neither the Germans or Entente can intervene, then this USSR is mostly just Russia, the Central Asia and Far East pieces, losing Congress Poland, Finland, the Baltics and Ukraine should reduce the Soviet Russian to more a peer to Germany long term and set the stage for a cold war beginning from the 1920s on. It might cast the Imperial Germans in the role the USA played as ideological enemy to the Soviets and sharing a border makes it just as deadly serious as the inter-German border or divided Korea, more so with Germany independently nuclear armed. One gets a hotbed of self-determination in the old A-H for flavor, Germany more weakly moving against this Russia in the Pacific, weird anti-colonial wars funded by everyone from Russian revolutionaries to American business interests. The USA is still more a regional power with aspirations, the British Empire clings to being world policeman and the French loathe Germany but trade with her, the Italians can even form a dastardly Fascist bloc to sprinkle wackos with garish uniforms into it. A multi-lateral cold war with say 9 nuclear powers and mostly all in gray hats?

 

[General Tirpitz]

I have often thought that in a scenario like this the likelihood of Finland becoming a Soviet puppet or a Soviet republic would increase. Firstly, if the Soviet leadership recognizes early that they won't probably get further than the Polish eastern border, they might to try to use force in the area where their expansion is more assured. Secondly, unlike IOTL, when the Baltic Sea was more or less a Soviet inner lake, here you have a possibility of Western aligned Germany and Poland. This makes the control of both shores of Gulf of Finland much more important for the USSR than it was IOTL. Thirdly, a stronger Western block might weaken Soviet influence in Finland, and it might be necessary to tie it more tightly to the USSR than was done IOTL in order to ensure its compliance.

I should add though that a much more western-oriented Finland than we had IOTL is also a possibility ITTL.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Would you consider a further back POD?

Sure, but the TL you described is a whole different scenario altogether. It's interesting, of course. A non-neutered Germany would far outweight the smaller USSR by the 1930s, and any Pacific adventures by either side would be blocked by Japan. The fate of China could go many ways.

 

[Whiteshore]

Does the KMT rule all of China or is there a PRC-in-Manchuria?

 

[Cregan]

This scenario is better for the Soviet Union's long-term survival in a lot of ways - for one, they won't be overextended and pouring resources into propping up their Eastern European vassal states and so can focus much more on internal development and (perhaps) good trade relations with their European neighbors.

The lack of a Sino-Soviet split will do wonders for unity - i.e. Kremlin hegemony - over the world communist movement.

Also, the lack of a Berlin Wall and not brutally quashing freedom movements like the 1953 Polish and East German Revolts, the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, and the 1968 Prague Spring means that the global image of the Soviet Union and communism won't be so tarnished in the era of anti-imperialism. Meanwhile, Western Cold War actions and partners (e.g. the 1965 Indonesian anti-communist massacres, French actions in Indochina and Algeria, US-backed Latin American military juntas, Apartheid South Africa, Portuguese colonial wars in Africa, Middle Eastern despots like the Shah of Iran and House of Saud, KMT dictatorship in China and the Korean military regime, etc) will make the capitalist bloc look much worse.

(Of course Stalinism has already poisoned a lot, so it depends if de-Stalinisation goes through or not).

 

[raharris1973]

since the Soviets are unable to engage in the anti Japanese campaign, the Chinese Communists have no special advantage in Manchuria. the Communists will start the postwar era in control of their 20 base areas scattered throughout China. The KMT will not have troops initially in place but wil move to take over from the Japanese via airlift, by sea and by occupying the rail kines of communication.

The OP stipulated the Chinese Communists will lose, and the argument in favor of that is the KMT will outgun them and the ChiComs will not have access to Japanese arms and puppet recruits to add to their forces.

However given the diversity of areas under ChiCom control, and the KMT's own limitations, the process of crushing Communist bases one by one will be long and inefficient.

KMT victory is much more likely, but not guaranteed. Another alternative is the ChiComs spend a couple more years on the ropes but they still wear down KMT pursuers , start to win regionally (mabe in northern China or the Central Plains and then move on to win nationally, just a few years behind OTLs schedule.

So to bring it back to your question this scenario does not make a permanent PRC in northeast China more likely than OTL. Instead the PRC will fall, or rise, on a national basis.

 

[Cregan]

since the Soviets are unable to engage in the anti Japanese campaign, the Chinese Communists have no special advantage in Manchuria. the Communists will start the postwar era in control of their 20 base areas scattered throughout China. The KMT will not have troops initially in place but wil move to take over from the Japanese via airlift, by sea and by occupying the rail kines of communication.

The OP stipulated the Chinese Communists will lose, and the argument in favor of that is the KMT will outgun them and the ChiComs will not have access to Japanese arms and puppet recruits to add to their forces.

However given the diversity of areas under ChiCom control, and the KMT's own limitations, the process of crushing Communist bases one by one will be long and inefficient.

KMT victory is much more likely, but not guaranteed. Another alternative is the ChiComs spend a couple more years on the ropes but they still wear down KMT pursuers , start to win regionally (mabe in northern China or the Central Plains and then move on to win nationally, just a few years behind OTLs schedule.

So to bring it back to your question this scenario does not make a permanent PRC in northeast China more likely than OTL. Instead the PRC will fall, or rise, on a national basis.

Or endless guerrilla war more likely? With the Soviet-backed ChiComs (much weaker than IOTL due to a much smaller and damaged Soviet Union, but still viable as a nationwide primarily rural guerrilla movement) vs the US-backed KMT (a corrupt junta like IOTL).

I'm thinking China could be a long-running, intractable, unwinnable Cold War guerrilla struggle much like Colombia IOTL.

 

[raharris1973]

This scenario is better for the Soviet Union's long-term survival in a lot of ways - for one, they won't be overextended and pouring resources into propping up their Eastern European vassal states and so can focus much more on internal development and (perhaps) good trade relations with their European neighbors.

The lack of a Sino-Soviet split will do wonders for unity - i.e. Kremlin hegemony - over the world communist movement.

Also, the lack of a Berlin Wall and not brutally quashing freedom movements like the 1953 Polish and East German Revolts, the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, and the 1968 Prague Spring means that the global image of the Soviet Union and communism won't be so tarnished in the era of anti-imperialism. Meanwhile, Western Cold War actions and partners (e.g. the 1965 Indonesian anti-communist massacres, French actions in Indochina and Algeria, US-backed Latin American military juntas, Apartheid South Africa, Portuguese colonial wars in Africa, Middle Eastern despots like the Shah of Iran and House of Saud, KMT dictatorship in China and the Korean military regime, etc) will make the capitalist bloc look much worse.

(Of course Stalinism has already poisoned a lot, so it depends if de-Stalinisation goes through or not).

Of course with Communism in power in just one country, and not looking like a potential global empire, the US will not be so reliant on all the embarassing right wing regimes and will probably more actively disassociate itself from dictators and European colonialism and ( at least after its own civil rights reforms) Apartheid.

 

[raharris1973]

there won't be a "the west" in OTL's sense without the cement of the Soviet threat. Instead there will be a more diverse world.

 

[Cregan]

Of course with Communism in power in just one country, and not looking like a potential global empire, the US will not be so reliant on all the embarassing right wing regimes and will probably more actively disassociate itself from dictators and European colonialism and ( at least after its own civil rights reforms) Apartheid.

there won't be a "the west" in OTL's sense without the cement f the Soviet threat. Instead there will be a more diverse world.

That seems quite optimistic. Communism will still be a worldwide movement (particularly popular with anti-imperialists in the Third World) - if only in power in the Soviet Union - and I think Red Scares are still likely. The US will still have an interest in rolling back or crushing potential communist movements that may flare up, for example like in my scenario of China.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Would de-Stalinisation even happen? The old Russian fear of being surrounded would be very well-founded in this case and could lead to a very frustrated and paranoid state, not unlike OTL North Korea.

 

[Cregan]

Would de-Stalinisation even happen? The old Russian fear of being surrounded would be very well-founded in this case and could lead to a very frustrated and paranoid state, not unlike OTL North Korea.

Especially if NATO is still founded and Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc join it.

 

[MichaelWest]

Sure, but the TL you described is a whole different scenario altogether. It's interesting, of course. A non-neutered Germany would far outweight the smaller USSR by the 1930s, and any Pacific adventures by either side would be blocked by Japan. The fate of China could go many ways.

Well to be honest that is where I am playing. I wanted to level the playing field to no super powers, keeping the Great Powers and pushing the world forward with more diversity of interests, spheres and shifts to see how realpolitik might keep nine nuclear powers from going to war. I call it the "cool" war, not as frosty but still not all warm and fuzzy. I have an Imperial Japan and a China that goes many ways. It seemed more interesting to nip the wanks and have no one country be the top dog, more cooperation and alliances, built on the shifting sands of change. My Soviet Russia is more of an intriguer and shadow fighter, less overt force and more clandestine. The Great Game moved to the future and given technology! Otherwise I just rethink the Cold War history I know.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Well to be honest that is where I am playing. I wanted to level the playing field to no super powers, keeping the Great Powers and pushing the world forward with more diversity of interests, spheres and shifts to see how realpolitik might keep nine nuclear powers from going to war. I call it the "cool" war, not as frosty but still not all warm and fuzzy. I have an Imperial Japan and a China that goes many ways. It seemed more interesting to nip the wanks and have no one country be the top dog, more cooperation and alliances, built on the shifting sands of change. My Soviet Russia is more of an intriguer and shadow fighter, less overt force and more clandestine. The Great Game moved to the future and given technology! Otherwise I just rethink the Cold War history I know.

I'd love to read a timeline about this.

 

[MichaelWest]

I'd love to read a timeline about this.

It is what I am working on, and why I enter discussions at a tangent. I have leveraged a lot of great knowledge here by asking questions inside discussions with changes I can see but had not yet thought out myself. I have had to learn a lot to even pretend to think I know how things might turn out. Laugh out loud.