The Long War - a WW II TL

Eurofed

Banned
Pretty good and interesting. Although expected, it is rather fascinating to see the Middle East, rather than Central/Eastern Europe or East Asia, to become the main flashpoint of early Cold War. I assume that either the author follows the theory that Stalin's 1953 death was a successful assassination, and ITTL the more severe purges snuff his would-be killers, or his stroke was a genuine thing, and it is simply butterflied out. I'm not entirely sure that Stalin's unhealthy lifestyle and paranoid attitude to physicians would grant him an extra decade of life, but it's not wholly impossible, either (late Stalin was not so much the medical basket case that late Hitler was). In the long term, an extra decade of Stalinism is going to wreck the country even more. However the silver lining for Russia is that ITTL the ethnic cleansing, both at Hitler's and Stalins' hands, was so extensive that when the USSR falls, Belarus and Ukraine are likely going to stay united with Russia. OTOH, the Soviet system is going to fall faster, for various reasons (see below).

I do expect Middle East to stay the main CW theater, BTW. Now, decolonization is certainly going to add some new theaters, mainly in Africa, even if with this stronger Western bloc, I think that Moscow is not going to have as much as success expanding its influence in Africa as IOTL.

Some ideas to throw around:

With the Soviet bloc focusing in East Asia and hence Vietnam joining it soon, I guess the Vietnam quagmire is going to be butterflied away. Although its place could theoretically be taken by something else, I can't think of any other Thrid-World country being high-probability of becoming a quagmire of Vietnam severity for America. So it could well go missing. That's going to affect the path of America in substantial ways. Although a big part of the 60s changes are still totally going to happen (the desegregation, the rise of the youth counterculture, the sexual revolution) since they are driven by hardcore social forces, without the Vietnam War (and its by-product, Watergate), the culture clashes are going to be rather less violent. The *Great Society would likely be more successful (e.g. earlier health care reform), and the Reaganite backlash butterflied away or substantially downgraded. However, the energy crisis is still going to happen, but with a less crappy '70s, America could make a more successful bid at energy efficience and independence.

Europe looks like it has achieved basic stabilization (nice to see German and Italian troops back in action in Persia on the side of the good guys :D:cool:). Although the onset of European integration was likely slightly delayed by having a stronger Germany and weaker Soviet bloc in Europe (but just as strong globally) around, those changes are not so radical (besides, America is still the big guy running the show and herding fractious Europeans together in its Western system, and the USSR is more aggressive globally) that it ought to be butterflied away entirely. With the 60s, and a new generation smoothing out the wounds of the past (besides, the guys that really got it bad from Germany already went in the other block out of spite), European integration should take off for good. With European armies seeing more action in the Middle East and a stronger Germany to rein in, not to mention a more aggressive Soviet bloc, it is quite likely that ITTL European integration gets its EDC/EPC military-political dimension running from the start in parallel to its EEC economic one. That is going to make ADC rather stronger militarily.

With a stronger Germany, which hence gets a stronger "economic miracle" and makes the Italian one and French "good decades" stronger too, not to mention Hungary and Romania getting fully integrated in the EU (as shall Spain and Portugal once they return to democracy), the EU is going to experience a rather stronger economic boom than OTL. That ought to make the European social-democratic system more successful, and the EU even more attractive to neutrals and the peoples of the Soviet bloc.

I do expect the EU core to become Germany, France, Benelux, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, as well as Spain and Portugal when they return to democracy. Serbia, Albania, Greece, Malta, and Cyprus could join slightly later, owing to their weaker socio-economic development. Thanks to TTL Cold War being focused in the Middle East, we could see Turkey getting the welcome in the EU they deserve when the rest of the Balkans joins up. It is a dice's toss whether Britain, Ireland, and the Nordic countries join, form their own stronger EFTA (rounded-up geopolitically with Finland), or make a looser confederal "outer tier" to the semi-federal EU.

For the Soviet bloc, in the long run, with three potential global powers in the same bloc (Russia, China, and India), and some un-Sovietized allies, things are going to be... interesting in the Chinese sense. The USSR has got an heightened military, economic, and space competition with a stronger ADC, which is going to make them collapse faster. Yet, they have got some un-Sovietized allies/vassals (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria), which are going to be rather less of a resource sink than OTL and more of an asset. However, once WWII lingering animosities die out and the lure of the EU builds, Poles, Czechs, and Bulgarians are going to realize they totally signed out with the wrong team, and try to drop out. Russia is not going to take it nicely, so we might easily see several "fraternal interventions" to stop would-be defectors, which is going to wreck their economic livelihood, esp. if the Soviets take the opportunity to impose their system. At least Poles could easily fight on if the Soviets invade. The ADC may or may not send help and turn the crisis into a confrontation between the blocs.

China, well, is likely going to pull the same bid for independence and split from Soviet hegemony like OTL. With a Soviet bloc more grounded in Asia, it could go both ways, the Soviets reluctantly accepting defection as IOTL which would make China follow the same basic path as OTL, or going to war in order to stop it, which would not be nice. A Sino-Soviet war would wreck China, bleed Russia dry (perhaps even pushing it to collapse), could become a mega-Afghanistan, and anyway would prevent post-Mao economic reforms, delaying China's ascent and making it a huge resource sink to Russia.

India is in the Soviet bloc for opportunistic reasons, and rivalry with China is going to make its membership fraught with tensions. They might easily defect, as post-colonial animosities die out, and go to be their own team like China, or be a loose member up to the fall of the bloc like OTL.

Korea, sadly, gets the Stalinist/Juche long nightmare expanded to the whole nation. Vietnam likely follows the same path as China, whatever it is, either the cautious reforms if China goes the Deng way, or another Stalinist hellhole if China stays bound to Russia. I did not understand if just Vietnam or whole Indochina went Red. If it was just Vietnam, I expect Laos to fall to Commie infiltration, but without the Vietnam war, Cambodia could resist, unless Vietnam invades it. Anyway, likely no Pol Pot genocide. The rest of South East Asia likely gets more American investment in order to stave off Communist infiltration, and likely follows the same path as OTL.

The Middle East remains the main flashpoint of the Cold War. Arab-Israelian wars become confrontation events between the blocs even more so than OTL, although I still expect Israel to come on top again and again. Division of Iran is quite going to butterfly the rise of the Islamists in Iran, as Communist North Iran is going to give the religious radicals a different target for their anger than Westernization, and US and EU likely keep a tighter rein on the Shah's excesses.

OTOH, I would expect that irredentist bid of Iraq on Kuwait becomes yet another Cold War flashpoint, although with Soviet backing perhaps Iraq is able to entrench its conquest of Kuwait (the superpowers could even make it an unspoken trade, Iraq keeps Kuwait and Israel keeps Sinai, Golan, and West Bank, and the world looks the other way as most Palestinians are kicked out). It might even be that the *Gulf War and the *Six-Day War become part of the same event. Perhaps the Iraqi invade Saudi Arabia , too, there is a confrontation between the blocs much like the Cuban Missile crisis, and the superpowers make the above deal, with the Iraqi pulling out of Saudi Arabia. Having even more Palestinian refugees around would make lebanon and Jordan even more instable, too.

In this sequence, Saudi Arabia would become a Western stronghold as it was during the Gulf War, but even more so, it would take the same role as the pre-1979 Iran. This could send the kingdom to some much-needed modernization, but the cultural shock could make the Islamist Revolution happen in Arabia, instead (or possibly, Egypt). Islamist Arabia would wreck the oil market, and force US and EU to take most serious efforts to energy efficiency and independence (a mix of green, coal, and nuclear).

For various reasons, I am under the impression that ITTL the Castrist Revolution would be snuffed out, so South America would be a bit less turbolent and perhaps have a less rocky path to social reform, without Castro and Guevara around as a bad example.
 
Last edited:
Alright, the last update. Enjoy ;).




Chapter VI: A Short-Lived Détente, European Integration, Middle Eastern Conflict, the Islamic Revolution and the Transformation of the USSR, 1964 – 2010.


Stalin was dead and now a struggle for leadership erupted in the Kremlin which would last shortly. There were only two real senior party members leftin the Soviet government. These two were Georgy Malenkov and Nikolai Bulganin. The former was willing to consider reform because the last decade of Stalinism hadn’t done the Soviet Union good. Deportations, mass murder and forced labour had changed the ethnic makeup of the USSR for good and Stalin had ruthlessly rebuilt his country with a command economy focused on heavy industry, mining and arms industry that was beginning to show cracks. The system was inefficient, corrupt even, and people were starting to lose their motivation as the planned economy didn’t serve their purpose. Not even Stalin’s massive cult of personality couldn’t change this change of mentality of pessimism and the perception that the system was failing. The USSR was also competing heavily in the arms race and the space race in which the western powers had scored the most victories so far (such as the first satellite and person in space and the lunar landing, all of which were emulated by the Soviets). The Soviet economy was starting to crumble under the weight of these projects, the cost was unbearable, but Stalin hadn’t wanted to concede that he might need to take a step back and accept a second place. Malenkov wanted change, more so to focus on internal matters, not only of the USSR but also of the Prague Alliance as friction was rising once more between China and India and also between China and the Soviet Union. Malenkov wasn’t too happy about it either, but he was more pragmatic than Bulganin. The latter remained a hardcore Stalinist and him as leader would mean a continuation of Stalinist policies. Needless to say, many in the party didn’t want that and Malenkov assumed leadership over the Soviet Union. This wasn’t the only place where a change in leadership would take place in the 60s. China’s planned economy had failed to implement Mao’s ideas on Moscow’s advice and was not yet as far to be deemed a failure, but still Mao Zedong was still a mass murderer and brutal dictator. Tens of millions had died, opposition was squashed and he had created a massive cult of personality which was beginning to sicken a number of party members in China. Mao plainly ignored them and pressed through his own ideas, including his own versions of the purges and the deportations, genocide etc and all these policies would be damaging for China in the long run. Therefore it was a blessing for them when he died of a heart attack in 1966 at the age of 72, allegedly out of frustration for being in the shadow of the Soviet Union under Stalin and out of stress for trying to compete with the Soviet Union. By now Nehru had died as well, in 1964. Fortunately this would lead to an improvement in leadership for China and an opportunity for dialogue, both within the Prague Alliance and with the west.

Malenkov, out of pragmatism more than anything else, announced sweeping reforms and denounced the cult of personality and other excesses of Stalin’s regime. He announced an end to the arms race and the space race to free up funds to create a consumer industry and reduce state intervention in the economy. Malenkov also announced he would meet with President Kennedy to talk about disarmament in terms of nuclear weapons. Stockpiles on both sides numbered in the tens of thousands which was a ridiculously high and unnecessary number. Building more was a waste of money by now as both countries could destroy each other several times over. Malenkov seemed sincere in his efforts to achieve détente. Malenkov was the first Soviet leader to visit America when he visited in 1966. The talks were somewhat fruitful in that the American President and the Soviet Premier agreed to reduce nuclear stockpiles to 10.000 by 1986 and reduce the number of ICMBs, but also short range surface-to-surface missiles quite radically although they could still destroy the world if these agreements were lived up to by both sides. The result was a strong reduction of pressure on the Soviet economy although it remained strained. Malenkov proceeded to turn inward and indeed made efforts to build a more consumer based economy, including more market based wages. He, however, wasn’t fully consistent and not really as persistent like his predecessor either. President Nixon who beat Kennedy in the 1964 elections fully adhered to the deal on nuclear weapons, but decided to put pressure on the Soviet Union another way by pushing through a massive conventional arms build-up. Nixon also acquiesced to let Germany and Italy proceed with their own nuclear programs. Germany had made a compromise peace and no deal had been made about Germany having weapons of mass destruction. Germany had destroyed them after the war because of a backlash against them due to the war, but it never stopped the military from arguing for a nuclear deterrent for Germany and only international consensus which the US had so far supported had stopped them. Nixon decided to turn up the heat. As for Italy, its nuclear program was less than successful, but they could count on assistance from the US now. Germany would test a 25 kiloton bomb in an underground test site in Thuringia in 1970 which provoked outrage from the USSR and an end to the short-lived détente. Relations froze further when Italy tested a 16 kiloton bomb in 1974. That this was possible without French or British diplomatic outrage was due to European integration and the reconciliatory course of Berlin and Rome since the late 1940s (which was made easier because both had seen their irredentist claims fulfilled). The result was that the west turned up the heat on Moscow and discredited Malenkov’s foreign policy. In 1971, Bulganin and a few others launched a coup and reinstalled Stalinist rule. Malenkov was overthrown and the thaw in the Soviet Union came to an abrupt end.

In Europe, integration had started to get a foothold since the 1960s after a resentment from the war had settled down. This was easier said than done even for a newly democratic and friendly Germany. The US had actively promoted the lifting of trade barriers, but further integration in Europe had been more difficult. The Stalinist juggernaut, however, had inspired Europe into action. A common European defence structure with a unified command structure in The Hague had been set up which was known as the European Defence Alliance or EDA. This coincided with an economic sphere known as the European Community or EC. Within the borders of the EC free trade, the lifting of tariffs and free traffic of capital, services and goods was promoted while stiff tariffs were set up against non-members except for a few such as America and Canada which received a ‘privileged partnership’. The EDA had a unified command and regularly conducted military exercises and war games while trying to improve coordination between the various armed forces. The EC had its own European Commissariat also in The Hague which consisted of one representative per member state as well as a parliament of 300 seats. There was also an unofficial directory which dominated the EC and consisted of Germany, France, Britain and Italy. Then there was the biannual meeting of ministers and heads of state and the possibility for emergency meetings. The members of both the EDA and EC were the Benelux countries, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Albania, Greece and Turkey and Sweden. The latter joined in return for assistance with its nuclear program which it received in the shape of fissile material which was what it needed the most. Sweden, fearing the Soviet Union, had had a program since the 1960s which had yielded a functioning reactor and centrifuges so far. In 1975 Sweden tested an atomic weapon and began building a small deterrent of some 75-100 nuclear weapons. Turkey was admitted because with all the Middle Eastern conflicts it was in the frontlines in the fight against communism. Nuclear missiles were stationed in Turkey and in the event of all-out war against the Prague Alliance Turkish planes would be fitted with American atomic bombs. This strong economic cooperation also helped strengthen the weak economies of countries like Romania and Greece. Over time the alliance would grow in strength as their military structures and economies got integrated, making it a superpower in its own right even if the member states would remain clearly separate entities within the framework. Spain and Portugal wouldn’t join until the 1970s after democracy returned there.

In the Soviet Union things continued like they always had under Bulganin while Malenkov was relegated to an unimportant post in his cabinet. Bulganin once again steered the USSR to a more confrontational course, especially in the Middle East which remained the flashpoint. A falling-out also occurred between Moscow and Beijing which went unresolved. The reform minded leadership remained part of the Prague Alliance, but decided to steer a course of its own. This government implemented reforms on a massive scale. This included privatizations in many sectors and a massive reorientation to a more market based and consumer based economy. The result was spectacular economic growth and an increase in living standards, especially for the growing urban population. By today, western living standards have become normal, as well as China’s exploits in space and the planned mission to the moon. The opening of China to western investments and world markets brought in money and companies to Chinese cities like Shanghai, Beijing and so on. China had an ocean of cheap labour and an enormous market. Western goods flooded Chinese markets and cheap Chinese products left China to American and European markets. Especially electronic appliances came out of China along with cheap cars. China became more and more accepted into the world community and came to dominate the Prague Alliance, with the only competition being India which had a massive economic growth and labour pool too. That India supported the USSR and functioned as a counterweight to China was perhaps the reason why Bulganin practically donated nuclear power to India. The economic growth provided capital for China to refurbish the state owned companies which by 1980 still made up a third of the economy. Chinese cities became flourishing metropolises with skyscrapers being built like never before. The result was a growing need for energy to which China responded by building massive hydroelectric plants, enormous dams. Nuclear power was also something China did research in, in addition to its massive coal reserves and coal fired power plants. China went through an economic miracle by the end of the 1970s while the USSR kept up old glory while in reality its importance and power was fading. Bulganin ended any ‘liberal’ reforms. He stepped up prestige projects like building space stations while maintaining an enormous army in the illusion that the Soviet Union was still the leading communist power. The USSR slowly started to crack under the weight of its own corruption and backwardness. Bulganin maintained a regime similar to Stalin’s, but he lacked to charisma of his mentor and his oppressive regime wasn’t liked. By 1975, both China and India had surpassed the Soviet Union in economic power and their competition made them go further (although India was tied down propping up its Soviet sponsor).

In the Middle East, in the meantime, tensions remained high, especially around Israel which was in conflict with its Palestinian inhabitants. Asia saw little disturbance comparatively since the US pumped money and support into the countries there after Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had sided with the Prague Alliance (same with South America where a communist revolution in Cuba was squashed). The Middle East was more complicated. In October 1971 Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan launched a surprise attack to ‘liberate the Palestinians’ which was signified by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait which was ‘historically part’ of Iraq and treasonous to the Arab cause’ (in reality it was sheer opportunism since Iraq didn’t lift a finger to help against Israel, using its allies as a distraction for the world instead). They were equipped with Soviet equipment while Israel, seen as a western lackey, was equipped with American and European equipment which was superior as the Red Army had given up quality in favour of quantity. Syrian forces attacked into northern Israel from the Golan Height after a devastating artillery bombardment with an aerial attack which immediately met with equally destructive surface-to-air fire from artillery and advanced SAMs. Egyptian and Jordanian forces met with similar resistance and soon the Israeli air force rose to the challenge. Its planes were not so much superior, but its pilots and commanders were superior by far to their Arab counterparts. Saudi Arabia was notably absent since it had made peace with Israel’s existence to fight off communism. Israeli armour suffered heavy losses against Soviet-built tanks which were still powerful despite their simple designs. Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian forces seemed to win, but as they advanced they sustained intolerable losses. Egyptian forces at one point became a threat, but Israel detonated a 20 kiloton warhead, destroying their army. The remainder of their forces was routed all the way across the Sinai desert. It was a shock to the world that Israel possessed an atomic arsenal and a rude awakening for the Arab world. Syrian and Jordanian forces were thrown back by conventional counterattack and surrendered. Israel proceeded to annex the Sinai Desert, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, thereby radically changing the status quo. Kuwait was less lucky as Iraqi forces overran it in a matter of days. Iraq was denounced, but then again Israel had gotten everything it wanted and Iraq happened to be the most powerful of the Arab Socialist states with chemical and biological weapons (and a running nuclear program which would bear fruit in the 1980s) and a means to deliver them to its neighbours (and Iraq was a member of the Prague Alliance). Western leaders protested vociferously, but in the end it was reluctantly tolerated as a compromise. Israel kept the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Desert and Iraq kept Kuwait and so peace was restored by the end of 1971.

This wasn’t the only unrest in the Middle East. In Persia there was widespread discontent about the Shah’s rule. He was an autocratic monarch who suppressed opposition, censored the press and didn’t respect human rights and freedoms. The secular regime and the indulgences of the imperial family as well as undemocratic rule made the Shah unpopular. His regime was not as bad as the communist north, but it was bad enough to get tensions to a boiling point. A conservative Islamic revolt erupted in Persia in 1977 against the rule of Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi. The army opposed the revolt and tried to squash it, with significant trouble. The Islamic conservative revolt led by a certain Khomeini was radically anti-western, seeing its culture as decadent and denouncing its continued support for the Shah’s regime. The Shah requested assistance from its allies and almost immediately forces from Persia’s Pakistani and Saudi allies arrived to interfere in what was becoming a civil war. Western countries provided political and materiel support. The Royal Persian Army and its allies were better equipped and organized. They brutally squashed the revolt and wiped out the Islamic opposition, but any credibility in the Shah’s regime was lost, not only in Persia but elsewhere as well. Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi saw himself forced to abdicate in favour of his son who became Reza II of Persia. He announced democratic elections and reforms, including the writing down of a liberal western-based constitution which reduced the monarch to a ceremonial figure while a real parliament and a truly empowered cabinet took over leadership of Persia, making Persia the only true democracy in the Middle East besides Israel. The Persian Empire became a modern constitutional monarchy, secular, but with freedom of religion and also freedom of press, gathering and so on. Surprisingly, North Iran didn’t attack (because Moscow kept them on a tight leash).

In the meantime, Bulganin died in 1980 and the system which now entirely revolved around him started falling apart. All the frustration over the corruption, backwardness, poverty and generally bad circumstances in the Soviet Union would now come to an eruption. Mikhail Suslov, a communist hardliner, succeeded him, but he wasn’t tolerated for long. Reformers rose up and Malenkov decided to make a return to the political stage which added to the chaos of the power struggle between the hardliners and reformers. A coup took place in Moscow which overthrew Suslov who fled to Leningrad where the army units sided with him instead of the new government. Most of the army and populace sided with the new reform-minded government, but nevertheless there was battle in a short mini civil war. Several SSRs took the opportunity took the opportunity to break free. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia and Armenia declared their independence in the period June-October 1981. The reformers won, but belief in the continued functioning of the stagnated communist system was gone and the populace in massive peaceful demonstrations which continued for months in Soviet cities demanded democratic reform in addition to economic reform. The reformers, who were not Stalinists, bowed to the people’s demands. The independence of the Baltic states, Armenia and Georgia was accepted by Moscow since they didn’t want further instability caused by violent military intervention and the subsequent resistance. The other SSRs chose to stay since it was better for them or because their ethnic makeup had been radically changed due to Nazi and then Stalinist rule in favour of ethnic Russians. On January 16th 1982, the politburo announced elections and disbanded itself while the Central Committee carried out day to day affairs. The Soviet Union was renamed the Union of Sovereign Soviet Republics in which the SSRs enjoyed more federal autonomy (coincidentally the acronym of the new country was still USSR). The republics gained a high degree of autonomy in internal affairs such as economy, education, religion, infrastructure and so on while Moscow controlled foreign policy and defence. Matters that concerned the entire Union would be settled by consensus. In addition to this, Moscow retained veto powers.

The winners were a coalition of communists and social-democrats although the Nationalist Party also made substantial gains. Economic reforms similar to those in China were announced and the USSR became finally became a democracy and opened up its markets. The massive spending on defence and aerospace industries was dropped and the USSR reconciled with China, accepting a second place. A result that only appeared in the medium term, at the end of the first decade of democratic rule, was economic growth. By 1992 a steady 7% growth had been achieved and living standards for the Soviet people were rising, and the USSR was ready to retake its place on the world stage as a major power. Another consequence of the end of communism in the Soviet Union, was that financing to the Northern Iranian communist regime dried up. The unpopular, repressive regime collapsed nearly overnight and in 1982 elections were announced here too and reunification was brought up although that would have to wait until the ravaged economy had recovered enough (popular support was more than sufficient considering how good things were going under the reign of Reza II in the south). A tentative date was set for 1995 and the Shah started pumping oil money into the north, billions of dollars. Western companies started to invest and a relatively quick economic recovery occurred, considering the state of the old, decaying infrastructure and economy of the north.

The 1990s were also the decade of shrinking world with the internet rising and computer technology spreading into everyone’s homes. The Prague Alliance, the Atlantic Defence Coalition and the EC exist to this day, but their economies have become more and more integrated. The political posturing also remains as well, but due to the globalization since the 1990s, the threat of war has decreased radically since it’s in no one’s interests to wage a nuclear war. And so the world has come full circle from the post-war division to a world where one can go from one side to the other with the click of a button.
 
On the face of it this would actually look like a better world.

In the end yes :D, but the USSR remained a Stalinist hellhole longer. Korea has the Kims over the entire peninsula and northern Iran had a regime worse than Khomeini's for four decades ;). OTOH, eastern Europe never did suffer from communism :). It's all relative.
 
In the end yes :D, but the USSR remained a Stalinist hellhole longer. Korea has the Kims over the entire peninsula and northern Iran had a regime worse than Khomeini's for four decades ;). OTOH, eastern Europe never did suffer from communism :). It's all relative.

Yeah, the moment you look at the history it wouldn't seem so nice. :p But still a very good TL, despite my criticism. :)
 

Eurofed

Banned
In the end yes :D, but the USSR remained a Stalinist hellhole longer. Korea has the Kims over the entire peninsula and northern Iran had a regime worse than Khomeini's for four decades ;). OTOH, eastern Europe never did suffer from communism :). It's all relative.

So very true, not to mention the fact that Germany, Italy, and Hungary did not suffer ethnic cleansings and kept their ethnic-linguistic borders (or better). :) Too bad for Ukraine, however.
 
Top