The Dogs Bark, the Caravan Passes: Isolationist USSR

In OTL, it is known that the USSR was successfully contained by the USA and China. the Soviet Union was never able to get as much solid international support as the US (lol China) and NATO, and much of what it did try was in vain, as its allies that it did have (with possibly the exception of the Middle Eastern ones) were generally more of a libaility than a benefit. The USSR also spent copious sums of money on weapons, that frankly, were largley never ultilzed, and became a huge drain on the USSR's economy.

Now, lets say that the Soviets realize that they can simply deter the Americans from any kind of invasion with their nuclear arsenal, and after WW2 cut their military down by huge amounts. They do not put missiles in Cuba, do not send troops beyond the borders of the Warsaw Pact, do not attack Afghanistan, and generally just play along with the USA's containment plan. Using money left conserved by cutting military spending, they focus more on developing their economy instead.

So is it plausible, that under this scenario, that NATO is, in 2000, still sitting around waiting for the USSR and Warsaw Pact's "inevitable collapse," with the Second World alive and well? Or does the USSR fall even sooner? More interestingly, is NATO even really at odds with the Soviets any longer?
 

Hnau

Banned
What about the Soviet Union's intentions to spread Communism throughout the world? Are they not going to support communism wherever it is? That seems against their ideology, where the CP is the vanguard of the world revolution.

Defense against NATO and the US with solely a nuclear arsenal? Sounds like the Communists could make such a decision. But surely they wouldn't stop sending arms and ammunition, experts and other ideological personnel, as well as economic aid to any state or group that wanted in on the USSR's brand of socialism.
 
So is it plausible, that under this scenario, that NATO is, in 2000, still sitting around waiting for the USSR and Warsaw Pact's "inevitable collapse,"


That depends. Less military adventures is good. More importantly, however, how is the WP handled, what is the status of Europe, and is the USSR busy crushing communist reformers?

Is the massive conscript army still there?

Or does the USSR fall even sooner?
That depends on how well the USSR is doing economically. Without massive aid abroad, probably a little better.

More interestingly, is NATO even really at odds with the Soviets any longer?
Again, several questions. Who runs the US, does the US get into adventures it cannot deal with in a graceful manner, and how does Europe perceive the Soviets.

If the relations are normalizing, the US might get aggressive anyway; an effectively finlandised Europe is not in their interests in the time period.
 
What about the Soviet Union's intentions to spread Communism throughout the world? Are they not going to support communism wherever it is? That seems against their ideology, where the CP is the vanguard of the world revolution.

There are advocates of "communism in one country" out there.
 
There are advocates of "communism in one country" out there.

Stalin himself had espoused this pre-WW2 as his only ideological contribution to Communism.

If the Post-Stalin Soviet leadership remained moderate, and gave up any pretention of world domination in exchange for a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, that could indeed work.
 
Well, China is still probably going to go Communist: Stalin OTL gave very little support to Mao after Soviet forces pulled out of Manchuria, and that will raise a huge stink in the US no matter how nicely the USSR behaves re things like West Berlin and so on.

How do they react to the Korean war? Or does iso-Stalin lean hard on Kim Il-Sung to avoid attacking the south at least until the US is distracted elsewhere? (In which cae the Korean war might start with the South attacking the North, which will make intervention awkward for the US).

Bruce
 
Top