I think the first is quite easy to archieve. Finlandized western europe, stronger soviet influence in the third world, the US becoming increasingly isolated, etc.
This could happen with a POD, at any point in the whole cold war era. Even a POD in the early 80s could result in this. Though Detenté was in my opinion the time, where it would be the easiest.

Finlandizing western europe? Easy? Why in the world would you think that?

Stronger Soviet influence in the 3rd World is... Eh. The 3rd World is poor and generally more of a liability than an asset. And due to the rivalries between 3rd World states, there is just no way for the Soviets to get enough of an advantage here to win. Very few will jump on an anti-american bandwagon just because the Soviets say they should.

And the US becoming increasingly isolated... So? Again, you really aren't appreciating the gap between the Soviets and the US here. The US has an equal population, a lead in most technological sectors, an advantage in the distribution of their natural resources, sets the standards for the world economy due to its economic power and smart diplomacy after WW2, has no natural rivals, utterly dominates its near abroad and has an economy three times larger than the Soviet economy.

The very, very best the Soviets can hope to do is to put the US in the same position they were in OTL, where the US is at a disadvantage and utterly outgunned, but is still powerful enough that they can destroy human civilization if the Soviets look at them funny.

And that's a continuing Cold War with a Soviet advantage, no a victory.

fasquardon
 
The US suddenly getting the retreat-into-isolationism bug would help.

Maybe a delayed A-Bomb could make the US catch it. During WWII we never got first hand experience with the really nasty parts of the war outside of the island hopping. If we went through with an actual ground invasion of Japan maybe that loss of life could turn enough stomachs to make people more weary of the conflict, less willing to be "ever ready" after the war is over. Even if the powers that be want to keep military production around the post-war levels of OTL, it will be incredibly unpopular during the recessions in the late 40s and even more so if the US ever gets involved with a conflict big enough to call for a draft. No Koreas, no Vietnams.

That would go a long way toward limiting the acceptable tactics for the US during the Cold War and maybe allow for Soviet influence to expand a bit farther than in OTL.

Continuation of the Cold War. USSR becoming stable. And that's borderline ASB

Nonsense, the Soviet Union could reform its economic system the same as any other state. You just need the right expertise and the political follow-through to turn that expertise to policy.
 
Well, it happened after WW1...
After WWI the US could afford to. Prior to the advent of missiles and nuclear bombs (and aircraft with a transatlantic or transpacific range), the only conceivable military "threats" to the US were Canada and Mexico and Japan to the Philippines. After WW2 it was clear that a revanchist Germany or Japan, a united Korea, China, Britain, France or the Soviet Union all had, or could quickly develop, the capacity to threaten the continental US.
 
Japan being made into a neutral country like Austria following the war would help, as it would provide the Soviets with another connection to international trade.

Taft winning in 1948 would help the Soviets quite a bit.
-Not as much Marshall plan aid
-No NATO
-PRC takes Taiwan
-Red Korea
-No US assistance to France in Vietnam
-No US involvement in the politics of France and Italy
-A different Cold War Germany (if the US is withdrawing from its occupation zone - who gets it, does the US accept the Stalin note, etc)
-Different Turkish straits crisis
-Different Greek Civil War
 
Another idea came into my mind:

In communist ideology, the self destruction of capitalism is inevitable. The increasing developement of the productive forces leads to an ever shorter growing cyclus of economic crises, and these crises become more and more devasting. According to Marx, capitalism will try to overcome these crises by exploiting new markets, and old markets more intensively.

So in Soviet philosophy, the communist bloc just had to to survive and wait, untill the day capitalism fell. What they could do to fasten the collapse of capitalism, was to support third world liberation movements, and bring those nations on their side. So the capitalist nations couldn't exploit their markets.

And this philosophical way of thinking was exactly the base on which they built their cold war strategy:

'Keep the Soviet bloc strong and united (interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia) and weaken the wests economies by supporting communists in the third world (Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Angola, etc.)'.

Soviet diplomatic doctrines like 'peacefull coexistence' and 'detenté' tried to prevent a war with the west and de-escalate tensions. They kept such a strong military because they feared the west would attack (their military doctrine also awaited a Nato pre-emptive strike). And looking back at western plans like 'Operation Unthinkable' and 'Able Archer', the Soviets had a point.

Their cold war strategy was focused on survival and the awaiting of capitalisms eventual collapse.

Maybe they had a point.
 
Last edited:
56: Nagy, then Mikoyan, then the Central European council commonwealth, then Enlai

Heightened consumer and agricultural productivity. Reduced military waste. Council democracy. Multitendential socialist humanism as policy in non-Maoist western CPs. Workerist-reformist Maoist CPs. Tankies as the outcasts. Lib com as official line.

Shallower soviet recessions. Potential European revolutions.

All you need to do is wait for half the republicrats to incorporate progressivism/labourism during the long recessive period for workers from the 1970s and that's a win condition.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
Hm...I would disagree with you. Lenin established the system of 'Soviet democracy'. You know, with base democratic councils and stuff.

No. The working class set up the factory councils. The all-party alliance set up the geographic councils. Lenin captured the Tsarist state apparatus intact, cowed the geographic soviets, and worked to place the workplace councils in acquiescence. Simon Pirani is fantastic on the party-workplace relationship just prior to NEP.

Soviet democracy isn't just incompatible with Bolshevik norms: it is incompatible with the Tsarist departments and the economic pressures of War Communism and the NEP, vide Kronstadt: an all-party workplace strike.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
Top