PoD for a USSR wins the Cold War TL

I've had an idea for a USSR wins the coldwar timeline. I've never seen a timeline like that. Anyway, I thought a good PoD would be for Brown vs. Board of Education to go the other way, declaring that segregation in public institutions was still legal.

The idea is that this, along with a bloodier vietnam, causes greater discontent at home. There are alot more riots and even terror attacks by groups like the Weather Underground or the Black Panthers. These groups cause chaos and violence, eventually leading to the people(the middle class) begging the government to crack down on the rioting radicals. So with an invitation from the people to essentially take unlimited power, the US becomes a totalitarian regime. Under who I'm not sure.

So how does this sound? Any suggestions? Any cool titles come to mind?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Have the Soviet public addicted to Tetris so much they've got no time to complain about their conditions? :p
 
I was also wondering what the probabilities for Alaska and Hawaii going independent in such a scenario? Hawaii I think is possible, considering it has enough physical isolation to warrant it, but I'm not sure how it would work exactly. Alaska is possible, but less likely I think.
 
Considering the economic differential between the US and the USSR during the entire Cold War it is near ASB.
The Soviets had 60 percent of the US GDP at their height. Avoid the Brezhnev stagnation through the use of the Lange Model central planning, Yugoslav style market socialism, or through the intelligent use of computer and networking technology would be a good start.

It would be an interesting TL to see the US crippled by internal division and in economic stagnation, not adequately funding computer technology, while a Soviet Union under an inspired leadership recognizing the value therein and using information networks and the world's most advanced computer networks to make central planning highly efficient. Get rid of the corrupt bureaucrats in the planning sectors, and it's feasible.
 
The Soviets had 60 percent of the US GDP at their height. Avoid the Brezhnev stagnation through the use of the Lange Model central planning, Yugoslav style market socialism, or through the intelligent use of computer and networking technology would be a good start.


Brezhnev era had greater economical success than gorbatchev era, first saw the SU with a higher rate of growth than the US and the latter saw an actual decline in living standards in its latter years.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The best way to get the US lose the Cold War, would be for them to nuke themselves for some ASBish reason, however you have to stop the USSR from nuking themselves in response somehow.
 
Best-case scenario for the USSR in the Cold War is a shorter, less bloody WWII that doesn't devastate most of the most prosperous regions of the USSR and kill as many Soviets. That puts the USSR in the best position it would be possible for it to be in.
 
The latest plausible POD here is 1945. Otherwise, victory is only achievable by the USSR surviving in some form until today, but with no allies in Europe and only minor ones elsewhere.
 

gridlocked

Banned
Wow, I guess I am on a totally different page, I can think of half dozen ways that the USSR could have won. Note, I am defining victory as being the dominant power in the Eastern Hemisphere, not a US collapse followed by an American communist successor state.

Although the odds were always against the USSR their nation had an decent geopolitical position and an army that was capable of winning a short war against the USA.

1) The most obvious one is that the USSR launches a successful surprise attack in Europe or the Persian Gulf (When Carter announced the Carter Doctrine is b/c many believed that the USSR was about to do just that and suppose Zwig wasn't around and Carter never drew that nuclear line in the sand).

Ultimately NATO depended on the idea that America would risk America's cities being annihilated in a nuclear war to defend Europe. Also NATO plans often depended on using tactical nukes to delay the Russians. What if the President refused to start a nuclear war to defend Europe? What if the President gave in to Soviet Nuclear Blackmail?

2) Truman was an unknown when he took office (or what if FDR choose somebody else) what if he had a different personality or was an isolationists?

Chicago Tribune

TWO TIMES ARE ENOUGH! The president's announced his policy for disengagement from Europe today with his timetable for ending the German Occupation made clear. With the scrourge of Nazism defeated the President relying on considerable Republican support declares that we have borrowed enough money to defend Europe. Policy analyst see a future Europe divided between 2 zones of influence: with the nuclear armed British Empire balancing out the Russian masses. Many believe that the administration is seeking to trade cancellation of WWI and WWII debts in return for a firm commitment by Britain and France to keep Communism out of the Western Europe.

Meanwhile in Asia the squabble between the Koreas has led to a Northern victory. Although Korea, being on the Asian mainland lies outside the US Pacific Sphere of influence, Japan feels that the US should have intervened in the conflict. Yet the war conveyed unexpected benefits to the US as the Japanese public seem to tilt father in a pro-US direction. Quite a change from 5 years ago!

I think there is an AH book called Alternities which pulls off this scenario quite well

3) Yale Historian Kagan makes a very strong case that if the Cuban missiles were discovered just a little later Kennedy would have accepted their presence, arguing that it was not worth risking war for missiles that would not have altered the balance of power. Kagan argues that they would have shifted the balance.

4) A Sino-American Nuclear war leaves the USSR as the last great power standing with China in ruins and the US badly damaged and perhaps seeking to curb foreign entanglements.

In one such scenario the Sino-Soviet split happens much later or not at all and China acquires considerable nuclear technology from the Soviets.

Still another has the Soviets engineering such a war at the height of the Sino-Soviet conflict in order to knock out China. Some believe that a Soviet false flag nuclear attack by submarine on Hawaii was contemplated then canceled in 1969. What would the effect of America killing 100 million people been during the height of the 60s political movement?

5) Some disaster hits the US, natural or man-made (political for instance). It does not matter what but what does matter is that it is a scenario that has nothing to do with the Soviet Union, but the USSR is the beneficiary.
 
Last edited:
The best way to get the US lose the Cold War, would be for them to nuke themselves for some ASBish reason

We did have an accident in 1980, where a 5 MT warhead was flung out of its silo into the nearby woods.

If it had somehow gone off, it would have killed thousands of people, displaced millions more, created
a swath of contaminated land across three bread-basket states, and made it politically impossible for
Reagan to deploy Pershing missiles in Europe. "Morning in America" would quickly turn to sunset.
 
The Soviets had 60 percent of the US GDP at their height. Avoid the Brezhnev stagnation through the use of the Lange Model central planning, Yugoslav style market socialism, or through the intelligent use of computer and networking technology would be a good start.

It would be an interesting TL to see the US crippled by internal division and in economic stagnation, not adequately funding computer technology, while a Soviet Union under an inspired leadership recognizing the value therein and using information networks and the world's most advanced computer networks to make central planning highly efficient. Get rid of the corrupt bureaucrats in the planning sectors, and it's feasible.


Both the US and the USSR had different reasons for GREATLY exagerating the USSR's GDP which was maybe half that and likely less. The US wanted to justify high defense spending and that is easier when your opponent is closer to you in GDP than when it isn't. It also need to go with the worst case scenario. The USSR wanted to exagerate its GDP for propeganda purposes and to intimidate its colonies in Eastern Europe. A higher GDP helps do that.
 
What makes you think that the 60% figure is an exaggeration? I'd suspect we have more accurate information now that the Cold War is over. Likewise, where does it say that the USSR had 60% the GDP of the US?
 
Okay then. I'm looking for a PoD that is after ww2 and before 1960. What would be best?
Right after Stalin's death is a good one. Malenkov and Beria underwent a period of rapid liberalization and reform within the state and the party. That needs to continue. Get Khruschev on their side, and keep the party going on the liberalization trend. Rapid destalinization, detente with the West, and rapid reform within the state planning apparatuses to rationalize the Soviet economy need to follow.
 
Wow, I guess I am on a totally different page, I can think of half dozen ways that the USSR could have won. Note, I am defining victory as being the dominant power in the Eastern Hemisphere, not a US collapse followed by an American communist successor state.

Although the odds were always against the USSR their nation had an decent geopolitical position and an army that was capable of winning a short war against the USA.

1) The most obvious one is that the USSR launches a successful surprise attack in Europe or the Persian Gulf (When Carter announced the Carter Doctrine is b/c many believed that the USSR was about to do just that and suppose Zwig wasn't around and Carter never drew that nuclear line in the sand).

Ultimately NATO depended on the idea that America would risk America's cities being annihilated in a nuclear war to defend Europe. Also NATO plans often depended on using tactical nukes to delay the Russians. What if the President refused to start a nuclear war to defend Europe? What if the President gave in to Soviet Nuclear Blackmail?

2) Truman was an unknown when he took office (or what if FDR choose somebody else) what if he had a different personality or was an isolationists?

Chicago Tribune

TWO TIMES ARE ENOUGH! The president's announced his policy for disengagement from Europe today with his timetable for ending the German Occupation made clear. With the scrourge of Nazism defeated the President relying on considerable Republican support declares that we have borrowed enough money to defend Europe. Policy analyst see a future Europe divided between 2 zones of influence: with the nuclear armed British Empire balancing out the Russian masses. Many believe that the administration is seeking to trade cancellation of WWI and WWII debts in return for a firm commitment by Britain and France to keep Communism out of the Western Europe.

Meanwhile in Asia the squabble between the Koreas has led to a Northern victory. Although Korea, being on the Asian mainland lies outside the US Pacific Sphere of influence, Japan feels that the US should have intervened in the conflict. Yet the war conveyed unexpected benefits to the US as the Japanese public seem to tilt father in a pro-US direction. Quite a change from 5 years ago!

I think there is an AH book called Alternities which pulls off this scenario quite well

3) Yale Historian Kagan makes a very strong case that if the Cuban missiles were discovered just a little later Kennedy would have accepted their presence, arguing that it was not worth risking war for missiles that would not have altered the balance of power. Kagan argues that they would have shifted the balance.

4) A Sino-American Nuclear war leaves the USSR as the last great power standing with China in ruins and the US badly damaged and perhaps seeking to curb foreign entanglements.

In one such scenario the Sino-Soviet split happens much later or not at all and China acquires considerable nuclear technology from the Soviets.

Still another has the Soviets engineering such a war at the height of the Sino-Soviet conflict in order to knock out China. Some believe that a Soviet false flag nuclear attack by submarine on Hawaii was contemplated then canceled in 1969. What would the effect of America killing 100 million people been during the height of the 60s political movement?

5) Some disaster hits the US, natural or man-made (political for instance). It does not matter what but what does matter is that it is a scenario that has nothing to do with the Soviet Union, but the USSR is the beneficiary.

By virtue of the fact that most of these are far-fetched or far from sure things, I think you've made my point for me.
 
Top