We all know the 1980's decade had a huge impact and was known for it's many things. Such as Nintendo, arcade machines, synthesized music, Star Wars, mohawk hairstyles, etc. But what if the decade turned out even more unusual with the Soviet Union collapsing 10 years earlier? I heard how in the 70's, the Soviet Union had trouble with its economy but was saved right during the oil crisis of 1973 where it got the opportunity to export oil and survive for at least 16 more years. Let's say the oil crisis doesn't happen and the Soviet Union goes into deeper trouble and becomes unstable to the point of it collapsing in 1981 or maybe a tiny bit earlier, not too sure. How would Brezhnev handle this crisis and what methods would've he used to prevent the destabilization in this alternate history? How would the process go? What would've happen to Eastern Europe, Russia and the former Soviet republics and how would they be to this modern day? How would the US policy and Ronald Reagan's fate be changed if the USSR collapses earlier? What would our world be like now? Would a strong figure like Putin rose to power and there'd be tensions with the west like it is in our timeline?
Soviet Union collapses in 1981
- Thread starter Shadow1080
- Start date
I see this thread is already a few months old, but since no one else has replied and I'm interested in the topic I figured I might as well post my thoughts. The POD here is difficult since various geopolitical factors involing nationalism, Cold War games, and natural resources lead to the Yom Kippur War and the ensuing OPEC Embargo which caused the oil crisis. However, if the USSR were to somehow collapse in 1981 this is the late Brezhnev period so don't expect the peaceful dissolution we saw under Gorbachev. Brezhnev would want to assert himself and his regime by force, so there would be greater internal strife or even some sort of civil war.
As for Reagan's fate, he gives a nice speech about the evils of Communism and conservative pundits try to credit him in some way for the USSR's downfall, but few reasonable people would fall for that kind of spin since Reagan would only have been President for a few months at this point. However, if the Soviets aren't getting involved in Central America perhaps the Iran-Contra scandal would be butterflied away. In the long-term he can't really be deified by the right as some sort of glorious Messiah who came down from on high and smashed the Commies by spending them to death (which is a myth at any rate). On the other hand, that's one or two less things that his critics can attack him for.
As for Reagan's fate, he gives a nice speech about the evils of Communism and conservative pundits try to credit him in some way for the USSR's downfall, but few reasonable people would fall for that kind of spin since Reagan would only have been President for a few months at this point. However, if the Soviets aren't getting involved in Central America perhaps the Iran-Contra scandal would be butterflied away. In the long-term he can't really be deified by the right as some sort of glorious Messiah who came down from on high and smashed the Commies by spending them to death (which is a myth at any rate). On the other hand, that's one or two less things that his critics can attack him for.
I think that Reagan wouldn’t be all that popular and could narrowly lose re election. He’d be remembered as an interesting foot note in history. Meanwhile, Carter, Ford, and even Nixon to a degree may gain some vindication. If the soviets fall that early. Solidarity in Poland works quicker. All the other places would fall too. Bulgaria would go into a bit unstable being reliant on soviets but nothing too bad. The countries could be better if Russia handles the transition well. As long as someone half competent and not drunk like yeltsin, Russia could prosper and no Putin would ever come into play. The other republics benefit directly from Russia’s successful transition so they could model their own transition. Tajikistan however may still be problematic. Armenia and Azerbaijan hate each other but that will be worked out like in OTL. I think. But that’s what happens.
marathag
Banned
Much larger 'Peace' dividend, without need to do much of OTL's Reagan Buildup, that started under Carter.
But I don't think it would be a 'Soft Landing' for the *Russian Federation, or whatever it will be called vs. OTL
The guy who 'Won' the Cold War wouldn't be popular, ontop of the Economy that would improve even more in this TL?
It's still Old School heavy industry with a crap consumer sector. In 1980, there still wouldn't be a market for the Trabant, and the East chose SECAM over PAL for their Television, so that market would be limited to France, but good luck competing against Thomson
But I don't think it would be a 'Soft Landing' for the *Russian Federation, or whatever it will be called vs. OTL
The guy who 'Won' the Cold War wouldn't be popular, ontop of the Economy that would improve even more in this TL?
It's still Old School heavy industry with a crap consumer sector. In 1980, there still wouldn't be a market for the Trabant, and the East chose SECAM over PAL for their Television, so that market would be limited to France, but good luck competing against Thomson
Reagan would’ve just come into office. He couldn’t have really gotten all that much credit for that. Unless someone builds a cult of personality around him. So Reagan couldn’t get credit there. And if Reagan treats the economy like in OTL (with many mistakes along the way), then even a great economy could only save him so much.
I think Hungary would lead the former eastern bloc since Kadar has loosened a little with golush communism. Yugoslavia would survive because Tito’s structure wouldn’t rot.
Would the US keep up its high military spending? What about Nato in general? In OTL the first Iraq war served as a justification for continued American involvement in the middle east and elsewhere, which eventually morphed into the war on terror.
But islamic terrorism wasn‘t really that much of a thing in the early 80s, and Iraq was still a quasi-ally during the Iraq-Iran war. Reagan was certainly an anticommunist, but he wasn‘t really a Neocon. Could Nato be dismantled, if its purpose was fulfilled a decade earlier, without any other perceived threats on the horizon? Or would it continue with a new purpose, like in OTL, along with American bases in Europe?
But islamic terrorism wasn‘t really that much of a thing in the early 80s, and Iraq was still a quasi-ally during the Iraq-Iran war. Reagan was certainly an anticommunist, but he wasn‘t really a Neocon. Could Nato be dismantled, if its purpose was fulfilled a decade earlier, without any other perceived threats on the horizon? Or would it continue with a new purpose, like in OTL, along with American bases in Europe?
RousseauX
Donor
No he wouldn't, Reagan realigned US domestic politics and the economy was doing well in 1984
There wouldn’t be that much difference, with the only long-term changes I can think of occurring the in the Balkans. Tito’s structure would have been stronger, and Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha was still alive at that point. Thus, Communism might actually have survived for longer in Albania (à la North Korea) and Yugoslavia (maybe they would have tried to copy China, although Tito was always hostile to Mao).