PoD for a USSR wins the Cold War TL

Ok, here's a very brief test timeline:
1953: Eisenhower sends military and financial assistance to the French in Indochina.

1954: Anti-War movement begins in the United States over Indochina.

1950's: Civil rights leaders are frequently targeted for assasination

1960's: The anti-war movement and the civil rights movement begin to grow violent. Groups like SDS, the Weather Under Ground, the Black Panthers, and the Nation of Islam begin orchestrating domestic terror attacks, and insiting riots at protests.

1960's (abroad): Israel is defeated in a war with the surrounding Arab nations, creating the nation of Palistine. Backed by the Soviet Union, they place an oil embargo on the United States and it's allies, causing the price of oil to sky rocket in the west.

early 1970's: After a decade of domestic violence, political turmoil, and a free falling economy, US citizens are willing to allow unconstitutional acts by the government to occur in order to restore order.

mid 1970's: The US government militarily intervenes in Latin American countries to stop communist and pro-soviet factions from gaining power. This leads to a large number of costly occupations that cost the US billions is dollars and thousands of lives.

late 1970's: The terror tactics used by radical groups increase in their severity but decrease in their frequency.

1980's: After a generation of fighting, the US withdraws from Indochina defeated, with thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent. Political reforms are attempted but halted after a severe terror attack that the Weather underground and Black panthers take credit for. A stronger control of the country is enforced. Large numbers of illegal immigrants pour into the United States from Latin America. The US invades northern Mexico in order to stop the influx of immigrants.

early 1990's: After decades of war and totalitarianism, a new President is elected who restarts the reforms that were halted in the 80's, and orders the withdraw of US forces overseas.


so what do you think of this overall idea? I think I will try it if there are enough people who like this idea and think it's plausible.
 
Ok, here's a very brief test timeline:
1953: Eisenhower sends military and financial assistance to the French in Indochina.

1954: Anti-War movement begins in the United States over Indochina.
Already it's nearly implausible. There' no turn-around time, and similar assistance has never caused more than a whimper in U.S. history.
 

aussieman1

Banned
Question about the effects on Australia

What effects would be there on Australia had the USSR won the Cold War?
 
FDR stays with Henry Wallace as VP. therefore no Truman, no Marshall plan, NATO never really gets off the ground. Italy, Greece and France go Red by 1950. Europe becomes Finlandized and the US becomes isolationist in later years with a much lower GDP because of reduced trade with Europe
 
The Hungarian Revolution and Prague Spring aren't crushed brutally by the Soviets. These early liberalisations prove to be a trend as similar movements spread across the Eastern Bloc, culminating in their success in the USSR itself. There may be a rocky period in the late '60s, but as long as a Gorbachev-style reformist comes along and wins the power struggle, an early end to totalitarianism is perfectly possible.
 
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.


I think this is the way to go. The Soviet economy and system are simply not going to be able to compete with their Western counterparts, so in order to have the USSR win the Cold War, something drastic is going to need to happen. So how about a nuclear accident like the one above occurs in the 70's, during Nixon or Ford's administration. It has an immediate dramatic anti-nuclear effect on American public opinion, and Carter campaigns on an anti-nuclear platform. This could also occur with a highly publicized nuclear war scare, such as the one that occurred in 1983 in the USSR, because if the world knew how close they came to destruction, their opinions on nuclear weapons would probably change. Either way, when Carter is elected, he initiates a detente with the USSR, which includes an alt-START treaty. Do to the radically different public mood in both the USA and Western Europe, this new START treaty dramatically reduces the number of nuclear weapons both nations have, and makes the use of nuclear weapons of any kind dependent on the highest authority in both nations, effectively removing tactical nuclear weapons from the NATO chain of command. However this happens specifically, in effect, the chance of nuclear war is reduced radically. Flash forward to the 1980's, where the Soviet Union is failing economically, and without the fear of global holocaust hanging over them, the Politburo opts for a military solution; seizing control of the middle eastern oil fields. The Soviet Union wins World War III, gains control of the majority of the worlds oil, and the Cold War ends due to Western reliance on resources that the USSR has a monopoly on.
 
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?

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/public/eas93.pdf

Outside of that article (and others out there) it is a combination of common knowledge and simple logic. It is well known that the Soviet Union manufactured what most Western countries would consider garbage and produced the wrong things for the wrong reasons. A lot of it is due to the 5 year plans which dictated what things were made. Since all bonuses were given for "above plan production" the entire economy was geared for that even though it contributed to a lot of waste. 1) A lot of the reason that most of what was produced was garbage was the fact that raw production was what counted not the qualitiy of what was being made. 2) Counting problems. When fixing glass quotas the party tried measuring production by square feet with the inevitible result of glass being made too thin. They changed it to being measured by weight and glass started being made too thick 3) Consumption was counted even when it was wasted. For example, since Soviet made steel had less strength then Western made steel the various machines made from it used more steel which was counted part of the GDP even though it was of less benefit than lighter, Western materials. They also tended to use more energy which also went into GDP statistics even though it was just wasted. 4) Russian equipment tended to break down more which resulted in more machines being made but not more used as many were used as replacements. This also entered GDP statistics. 5) Everyone had an incentive to lie about how much product they made and this was entered into the statistics.

Due to all these reasons I would see an adjustments downwards by at least half very reasonable.
 
Korea...

One option I would offer would be a disastrous US/UN defeat in Korea leaving the whole peninsula under Communist control.

Such a defeat might lead to a more isolationist US policy which would effectively bequeath Asia to a more successful Sino-Soviet Alliance leaving Japan an isolated outpost and allowing Soviet influence into the Indian sub-continent.

With the Arab middle-east united under pro-Soviet regimes in the late 60s and the European powers and the US struggling to contain Communist insurgencies in Africa and the Caribbean, Israel might struggle to survive as might Iran and even the oil-rich monarchies.

I don't foresee the conquest of western Europe by the Alliance but I could imagine a Communist or left-wing Governments in Italy, Greece and possibly France pulling out of NATO leaving the UK and West Germany alone and could Bonn resist a generous offer of reunification and de-militarisation from Moscow ?

With NATO in ruins, the UK is left with the US and a few other states on the fringes of a world dominated by Moscow and Beijing.
 
The best POD is probably no Marshall Plan. Without it, you have a 'Red' Western Europe within a decade if not sooner.
 
A little after my above post, the OP clarified that they want a pre-1960 POD.

Same idea could survive, though. Korean war goes nuclear, and in the resulting catastrophe a leftist bloc in Western World rises diametrically opposed to nuclear weapons. They achieve nothing, however, since the USSR refuses to denuclearize. When the 1980's come along, same situation as above; they agree to a alt-START treaty, WWIII roles along, they win.

Going along a different tact, perhaps we could change the leadership traits of the USA and USSR? Say McCarthy becomes President and becomes far too right for Western Europe, and his overreaction to European action in the Suez crisis causes a split between the USA and Western Europe. Moreover, if the USSR had pragmatic enough leadership to take advantage of this, the USA would be in a tough position.
 
2nd September 1985, during a routine test, the US launch system goes mysteriously out of control and launch all of the US´s SLBM and ICBM are against China, both civilian and military targets are hit several times over.

In the following retaliation, the Chinese prooves to have more bombs than the US gov believed.

The Soviet-Union joins, striking mostly military targets in the US, west germany gets involved in the war, France and the UK take the occation to butt out of WW3 since the US seems to have gone mad.

A year later, the DDR have annexed West Germany and Warsawa Pact forces helps restore order in China, which have joined it.
 
I thought on a greater soviet victory during WW2 or a cold war turning into a hot one during the cuban missle crisis of 1962.

The first might fly. The second would backfire.

Contrary to Kennedy's speechifying and the perception caused by Sputnik, the "missile gap" was entirely in America's favor. Not only were they behind in delivery systems (and thus forced to primarily fire on Europe, Japan, Korea, etc.), they were still behind by warhead count.

A nuclear war in the early 1960s would have seen NATO bases in Europe struck, but the Soviets would be forced to rely on the extreme range of a limited supply of bombers to strike against the United States itself. Since the US had the capacity to shoot down such bombers, a strike would have to be a total one, trying to get past by sheer weight of numbers. Few American cities would be struck, and likely the ones that were would not be in the Washington-Boston belt (where most of the effort of defense would be).

Russia, meanwhile, would have suffered equally in Eastern Europe, and would have suffered at least a couple dozen targeted strikes within its own borders, probably more like twice that. Logistic collapse from the bombings would mandate small scale operations in what was left of the European War (and what was left of Europe). In these, the Soviets would have an advantage of distance, but a disadvantage in supply to Germany - roads, airfields, and rail would be gone, but all that NATO shipping'd still be afloat.
 
One option I would offer would be a disastrous US/UN defeat in Korea leaving the whole peninsula under Communist control.

Such a defeat might lead to a more isolationist US policy which would effectively bequeath Asia to a more successful Sino-Soviet Alliance leaving Japan an isolated outpost and allowing Soviet influence into the Indian sub-continent.

With the Arab middle-east united under pro-Soviet regimes in the late 60s and the European powers and the US struggling to contain Communist insurgencies in Africa and the Caribbean, Israel might struggle to survive as might Iran and even the oil-rich monarchies.

I don't foresee the conquest of western Europe by the Alliance but I could imagine a Communist or left-wing Governments in Italy, Greece and possibly France pulling out of NATO leaving the UK and West Germany alone and could Bonn resist a generous offer of reunification and de-militarisation from Moscow ?

With NATO in ruins, the UK is left with the US and a few other states on the fringes of a world dominated by Moscow and Beijing.

Uh, except the Moscow/Beijing alliance is almost impossible to keep in one piece. It collapsed almost straight after Korea, because of the Chinese victory. The Chinese wandered off almost the second they got the chance. If you want to keep them together, the Chinese have to feel they need Soviet protection or vice versa. That makes it a bit tricky to have them start out on world domination, because it'd just lead to the USSR losing its greatest ally.
 
As far as the opening post.... Issue number one is avoiding the Eastern Front we saw in OTL. The war ruined them, nevermind the nice impressive new lines it drew on maps. In a lot of ways the Russians still haven't recovered from the damage that it did to them. They spent a couple decades trying to rebuild what they'd had, and they did, but having something in 1941 is a lot different from having the same in 1965.
 
Basically it takes the US doing something very,very stupid. With its huge economic advantages it would take major stupidity on its side to lose.
 
Top