Soviets don't invade afghanistan

Let's assume Taraki preempts Amin and has him killed rather then vice versa. Limited Soviet presence exists (airpower, airborne troops protecting air bases, advisors) but no direct intervention.

Then what? No great war for muslims, no foreign volunteers, no sense of defeating one superpower and wish to take on the other one, no drain on soviet economy.

SU collapses, but maybe a bit later (say mid-90s).

Different "We Didn't Start The Fire Lyrics"
 
Let's assume Taraki preempts Amin and has him killed rather then vice versa. Limited Soviet presence exists (airpower, airborne troops protecting air bases, advisors) but no direct intervention.

Then what? No great war for muslims, no foreign volunteers, no sense of defeating one superpower and wish to take on the other one, no drain on soviet economy.

SU collapses, but maybe a bit later (say mid-90s).

Different "We Didn't Start The Fire Lyrics"


If the Soviets are able to resist the urge to intervene fully, then they would save themselves from that embarrasment. The problem is that they will need some of the their political and military leadership that the sending "advisors" into a place like Afghanistan seldom stays low key.. Plus all the particular dynamics of that place.


The Soviets will still have a drain on their economy from the massive arms race with the West. There was no way the Soviets could keep up with the defense spending the they had engaged in the 70's and early 80's. Regan was rebuilding the U.S military with huge projects. Strategic nuclear weapons systems are very expensive to build, maintain, and upgrade.

Soviets internal political and economic corruption was beyond belief. In short the Soviet economic system had failed to address the internal domestic problems.

Anyways what could happen?

1. The great war for Muslims will be focused on Israel probably.

2. Iran will be looking to fund up Hezbollah.

3. The typical operations against the West.

4. With the Fall of the Soviet Union the Radical indoctrination of the Southern republics will probably continue.

5. Muslim fighters have their choice to fight in Checnya or in the Balkans as the massive communist police state is no longer there to keep order.

6. It could be very possible that Pakistan losses out several billion dollars worth of U.S and Saudi economic/military aid in which they use to get there nuclear weapons program going in the 80's. The U.S wanted a powerful Pakistan if the Soviets overran Afghanistan. Without all money from U.S and the Saudi's Pakistan would have stuggled to get the bomb and keep pace with India..
 
Last edited:
for me, the war proved the final fallacy of soviet arms and tactics...without it, the reds may be a bit more confident to deal with a crisis militarily
 
...

The Soviets will still have a drain on their economy from the massive arms race with the West. There was no way the Soviets could keep up with the defense spending the they had engaged in the 70's and early 80's. Regan was rebuilding the U.S military with huge projects. Strategic nuclear weapons systems are very expensive to build, maintain, and upgrade.
From what I have read, there was no arms race - at least, not on the Soviet end. Their military spending didn't change appreciably throughout the 1980s. It was Gorbachev exposing the corruption, inefficiency, and inequities of the whole system that actually brought down the SU.
 
From what I have read, there was no arms race - at least, not on the Soviet end. Their military spending didn't change appreciably throughout the 1980s. It was Gorbachev exposing the corruption, inefficiency, and inequities of the whole system that actually brought down the SU.

I agree, its easy to say with hindsight that the SU was doomed to collapse but that wasn’t the case.


It was a combination of factors happing at once that bought it down:


Loss of military prestige by abounding Afghanistan and its government to the well lets face it….Taliban.


Gorbachev's loosening of party control which allowed, dormant nationalist sentiment in the various Soviet Republics, to find a political voice.


Badly executed & poorly thought out economic reform which turned a stagnating but stable economy into a collapsing one. leading to a catastrophic decline in living-standards. & widespread discontent.


Oh, and who could forget that bungled coup.
 
there would be no US arms-supplying to the Afghanis, so if the US goes to war, the resistance won't be as heavy at first. it might be butterflied away though, somehow.
 
Loss of military prestige by abounding Afghanistan and its government to the well lets face it….Taliban.

Well, not quite. While taliban did take over it was in 1996, 7 years after Soviets pulled out. Prior to taliban mujahedeen started fighting among themselves and against DRA (which, ironically, outlived their sponsor)
 
Prior to taliban mujahedeen started fighting among themselves and against DRA (which, ironically, outlived their sponsor)
Irony was that Soviets actually achieve their purpose. They built friendly puppet regime which (given massive logistical support of the sponsor state) controlled enough of country's territory to prevent this country from becoming puppet of it's Cold War adversary (Soviets grew increasingly irritated by proliferation of "Cubas", i.e. American puppets used to collect intel and deploy nuclear arms, along their borders). Regime fell not because mujahedeen defeated it, but because Russia stopped sponsor it. Incredible, it survived more than a year (between break up of the USSR and hanging of Najibullah by the victorious mujahedeen) completely on it's own and fell mostly because DRA leadership did not know what aim to pursue after collapse of Communism. not because of mujahedeen's military superiority.

Would Americans be able to build something similarly stable in Iraq or Afghanistan today, it would be hailed as incredible victory of Forces of Good.

Going back to OP's idea, one of the most obvious butterflies of "no Afghanistan invasion" would be "no Islamofascists". You should remember that during 1970-1980s Islamic world was a battleground where pinko modernists (Nasser, Sadat, Hussein etc.) battled Islamic traditionalists. USA did their best nurturing every Islamic radical it could use, but this policy had rather limited success pre-Afghanistan. Soviet invasion gave Islamists real chance to grew on American money and traditional Eastern hatred for infidels.
 
Irony was that Soviets actually achieve their purpose. They built friendly puppet regime which (given massive logistical support of the sponsor state) controlled enough of country's territory to prevent this country from becoming puppet of it's Cold War adversary (Soviets grew increasingly irritated by proliferation of "Cubas", i.e. American puppets used to collect intel and deploy nuclear arms, along their borders). Regime fell not because mujahedeen defeated it, but because Russia stopped sponsor it.

Soviets provided aid even after withdrawal. advisors, TBMs (Afghan war was one where they were much used, not that you hear much about it)

Incredible, it survived more than a year (between break up of the USSR and hanging of Najibullah by the victorious mujahedeen) completely on it's own and fell mostly because DRA leadership did not know what aim to pursue after collapse of Communism. not because of mujahedeen's military superiority.

Najibullah was hanged in 1996, when Kabul fell to taliban.
 
Soviets provided aid even after withdrawal.
Yes they did. While they did it, DRA was functioning puppet state. They stopped, however, sometime Autumn 1991. BTW, I miscalculated longevity of the DRA regime. They stood on their own for approximately 6 months, not a year (although, if one counts Northern Alliance as an offshoot of the DRA, it held it's own until US invasion in 2001).

Najibullah was hanged in 1996, when Kabul fell to taliban.
My bad :(
 
Thoughts

Carter signed-off on aid to the mujahadeen in July 1979, five months before the Soviet invasion. That would continue although Taraki's more concilatory policies and the lack of a Soviet invasion would mean that it would not likely reach the level it did OTL.

The Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis along with the Sandinista takeover will likely still give Reagan the victory in the 1980 election, but he may not get as much as he wants of his foreign policy.

The non-invasion of Afghanistan could make a difference in the Senate races that were very close in 1980. Barry Goldwater loses his seat to Bill Schulz (who?), Herman Talmadge holds his seat against Mack Mattingly, Frank Church holds his seat against Steve Symms, Elizabeth Holtzman takes Javits's seat instead of Al D'Amato (yay!). This gives the Democrats a 50-49 edge in the Senate, with independent Harry Byrd caucusing with the Democrats. Democratic control of the Senate, however tenuous, could affect some of Reagan's cabinet appointments.
 
Top