The Soviets Form Their Own Global NATO Equivalent

Rishi

Banned
The Soviet Union says that all of the world's socialist countries form a tightly knit family that must protect each other and that any attack on any one of the world's socialist countries is an attack on ALL of the world's socialist countries. In this timeline, there is NO Sino-Soviet Split and China is subordinate to the Soviet Union (at least militarily). What would it take to get every country in red and orange on this map to join a global socialist equivalent of NATO led by the Soviet Union? I am NOT talking about an expanded Warsaw Pact, I am talking about something quite different.

commie_flex.png
 
Last edited:

Orcbuster

Good luck getting china subservient to the USSR

Also what orko said, you are in effect describing an expanded warsaw pact.
 

lukedalton

Orcbuster said:
Good luck getting china subservient to the USSR

Also what orko said, you are in effect describing an expanded warsaw pact.
Click to expand...

Or India btw and try to put the middle eastern nation in any formal alliance will be considered very dangerous due to the Israelian-Arab conflict or North Korea with the semiregular incident with the South Korea. And if you are not talking about an expanded wars pact, what's this alliance? Something more integrated...even more difficult to see India and China do what the Soviet Union say in the long term and i see Jugoslavia is part of this 'family' so Stalin had probably invaded that nation
 

kmmontandon

Rishi said:
The Soviet Union says that all of the world's socialist countries form a tightly knit family that must protect each other and that any attack on any one of the world's socialist countries is an attack on ALL of the world's socialist countries.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any period where the Soviets would actually want this. That's a great way to get dragged directly militarily into wars they don't want to be a part of, when fighting by proxy was probably their best bet. Also, the Soviet Union would need much, much better global power projection than they had IRL - at least a couple of CVBGs and amphib groups, plus a much better expeditionary force than they ever had. Which means taking away from their Eastern Europe forces. What do they not spend money and manpower on in order to maintain these forces? Because you're talking about a corp's worth of ground resources drawn away from Europe, and probably two dozen attack subs and SSBNs that don't get built. Oh, and a weakened air force, that has to spend money, airfield space, and trained personnel on the long-range logistics aircraft & escorts that would also be demanded.

The U.S. had a global presence ground, sea, and air by not maintaining the sort of massive army the Soviets had.
 

Father Maryland

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
An equivalent of NATO is precisely what OTL's WarPac is. You are looking for something FAR broader. NATO + SEATO + Japan + Korea + ....
Click to expand...

It'd probably be more plausible for the USSR to try and pull something like what the US tried. Namely instead of trying to make the Warsaw Pact a global pact try setting up a number of regional Warsaw Pact analogues like the US did with SEATO excetera.

Though the US efforts to replicate NATO mostly failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top