Reverse Cold War: Overview of Various Nations

I doubt you'd be able to get a complete switch of NATO and the Warsaw Pact really. Something between the Americas dominated by a communist USA against a capitalist alliance in other continents. The US would probably at a disadvantage trying to export its ideology in these circumstances.
 
I doubt you'd be able to get a complete switch of NATO and the Warsaw Pact really. Something between the Americas dominated by a communist USA against a capitalist alliance in other continents. The US would probably at a disadvantage trying to export its ideology in these circumstances.

I don’t disagree with the first point, as I think that Western communism (however undesirable) would be more democratic and pro-Human Rights than OTL version.

Why do you suppose the US would have problems exporting their ideology, though? Wouldn’t a less totalitarian brand make it more popular, or would it intesify Red Scare-style hysteria in Eastern nations? Or, something else?
 
I don’t disagree with the first point, as I think that Western communism (however undesirable) would be more democratic and pro-Human Rights than OTL version.

Why do you suppose the US would have problems exporting their ideology, though? Wouldn’t a less totalitarian brand make it more popular, or would it intesify Red Scare-style hysteria in Eastern nations? Or, something else?

I was thinking more in terms of logistics along with the US ideology perhaps standing against the majority of Asia, Africa and Europe. Would be able to export weapons and so on, but the supply line between the Americas and everywhere else makes it much harder to do so if it lacks allies within that particular area already.
 
I was thinking more in terms of logistics along with the US ideology perhaps standing against the majority of Asia, Africa and Europe. Would be able to export weapons and so on, but the supply line between the Americas and everywhere else makes it much harder to do so if it lacks allies within that particular area already.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense.

I don’t know how plausible it is for an overwhelming majority of those continents to be capitalist, though. Maybe if large Eastern powers work to win them over and/or crush dissent, that’d be the case. How various nations would respond to this would depend on the nation in question. Other than that, I don’t know which of them would align with which side.
 
Ah, that makes a lot of sense.

I don’t know how plausible it is for an overwhelming majority of those continents to be capitalist, though. Maybe if large Eastern powers work to win them over and/or crush dissent, that’d be the case. How various nations would respond to this would depend on the nation in question. Other than that, I don’t know which of them would align with which side.

Well, I'm thinking a bit like the USSR, which was originally just Russia. Very few other countries had a successful 'home-grown' Communist Revolution which didn't have a variety of factors behind it. The logistics of Vietnam, for example, was much easier on the Viet Cong's allies than it was the US. If you can get a Communist nation on another continent that isn't crushed, then the US has an 'in' that way, but it might prove to be a bottle-neck, of sorts. Due to the distance involved, it's not entirely unlikely you'd see the other nation break away from the US if a difference in dogma arises.
 
Well, I'm thinking a bit like the USSR, which was originally just Russia. Very few other countries had a successful 'home-grown' Communist Revolution which didn't have a variety of factors behind it. The logistics of Vietnam, for example, was much easier on the Viet Cong's allies than it was the US. If you can get a Communist nation on another continent that isn't crushed, then the US has an 'in' that way, but it might prove to be a bottle-neck, of sorts. Due to the distance involved, it's not entirely unlikely you'd see the other nation break away from the US if a difference in dogma arises.

Interesting, that gives me a lot to think about.

Regarding the Vietnam example, I’m guessing that Russia, China, or whatever Eastern powers decide to prop it up would provide good logistical aid due to their proximity in TTL. If those powers end up wealthier and more powerful than their OTL counterparts, the USSA will probably be at a greater disadvantage. Add that to themselves likely being less wealthy, and the people more fanatical about their cause and thus, more willing to sacrifice troops in a failing war, and there’d be additional problems. That is, if the USSA didn’t hyper-militarize as to spread their ideology.

If a Communist nation were to spring up on an un-crushed continent, then the USSA would seize upon the opportunity, I’m sure. But, as you stated, there’d likely be little that it could do to prevent the nation from breaking away. Besides, the closer proximity of Eastern powers means that they might have an easier time addressing this development promptly, and with a better logistics chain.

At the same time, though, the Capitalist East would probably face similar difficulties in spreading their ideas to the Americas.

Anyway, thank you for making those points.
 
Last edited:
In fact, there are a lot of options as it may look, but there are a lot of conditions that need to be considered.

For example, that at the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was an agrarian-industrial country with an absolute monarchy, where 80% of the population were illiterate peasants. Under such conditions it is difficult to become a leader of the capitalist world. Therefore, I think that POD should be at an early enough point.

Also, I note that none of the blocks was a single monolith. The United States fluctuated between its political factions, and both differed from French Gaullism. Also the Polish system was different from the GDR system.
 
We have an OTL example of a western country that was pretty command-and-control Socialist and that was the UK pre-Thatcher.

Kind of nasty and depressing in a lot of ways, pretty economically inefficient in a variety of others, but you didn't have massive human rights abuses.

Of course, the US had its own human rights abuses (segregation, internment, southern use of prison labor), abuses of authority (Hoover's FBI), and tyrannical actions (FDR's Court Packing scheme). It's not that hard to think up a way for the US to have its own flavor of Socialist tyranny.


Even with Socialist economic inefficiency, I can't see the US falling behind the Russians the way the Soviets historically fell behind the US though. By the end of the Cold War they had a smaller economy than Japan after all. If the US economy is 1/3 less due to reduced growth rates compounded over time, odds are that'd mean the country is still around the same size economically as the Russians here.
 
We have an OTL example of a western country that was pretty command-and-control Socialist and that was the UK pre-Thatcher.
Funny, but no. Official Laborers were already more Social Democrats than Socialists at that time (the difference is enormous). And inside there was a huge number of factions (including the liberal one - which later emerged as a "Social Democratic Party").

The reason for the economic problems was not in the state regulation, but ... that all their reforms did not affect the basic principles of the capitalist economy. The Labor government is known for its nationalizations, but only large enterprises connected with transport and heavy industry were nationalized, while the bourgeoisie received significant compensation (which is unprofitable for the economy, and contradicts the principle of expropriating expropriators). Moreover, most of these enterprises were nationalized only for that .... in order to remove them (in the ownership of the state, as a rule, non-profit enterprises came into being) and return them to the former bosses. This is more like a deal between the capital and the state - at the same time the state was at a loss. Remember another war in Korea, where Britain had no reason to participate. In other words, the whole "Labor Socialism" consists only in a mediocre financial policy and deals with the bourgeoisie, while it is simply necessary to take it away. This is in the first place.
Secondly, the Soviet economy in many ways was the second economy in the world. Yes, basically it concerned heavy industry, but also in the sphere of consumer goods, statistics is not a depressing table. The main problem of the Soviet economy is the mediocre distribution of goods (when I do not know where to put fish in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, and Sredlovsk does not have it).

Thirdly - that before the backlog, then in the beginning of the USSR was in the worst conditions. But nevertheless, in the sixties the USSR had real chances to get ahead .... Even in the field of cinema and design of the USSR, if not glittering, it kept at the European level.
 
I've noticed that this thread has received no replies since WotanArgead's post from May 1st. While I'm not necessarily surprised, nor worried about the lack of conversation due to how new I am here, I still want to keep the conversation going and see more perspectives regarding this particular scenario.

To stimulate additional discussion, I've created a second Reverse Cold War thread, which is at the link below:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...apitalism-and-communism.443436/#post-16997916

I hope this helps,
Zyobot
 
Top