This is one inspired by re-reading Werth's "Russia at war".
Werth is claiming that the split in "East" and "West" might not have happened, at least not as definitive.
Werth is quoting William Appleman Williams's definitions of Soviet leaders: Softies, Conservative and doctrinaire Revolutionaries.
The softies, inclusing Litvinov, obviously were in favour of a loan from US (the $7 billion which never came about).
The "choice" was between closer cooperation and dependency on US via loan and continued LL and security.
According to Werth, many soviet leaders had all three tendencies in varying degrees in their heads at the same time, so it is not possible to really label soviet leaders.
Litvinov poured his heart out to Werth in 1947. LItvonov claimed that in 1945, USSR had a choice between "cashing in on the goodwill in the west" and "security". Security was what Stalin and Molotov went for. Grab as much of Eastern Europe while the going was good.
Werth is claiming that the half-way mark prevailed. The conservative policy went ahead. Stalin rejected the World Revolution way, etc.
Apparantly life did become easier in 1944/5 at least in Moscov and a reconstruction loan from US would have raised the living standard dramatically, especially if the arms race got curbed together with demobilisation.
It did not exactly helpt that Truman cancelled LL even before the war ended but still asked USSR to partake in the war against Japan.
Here is my WI:
WHAT IF
LLwas not cancelled
$7 billion for USSR
US looking at USSR as a new market and starts to invest heavily
Private markets are accepted to a degree in USSR
Demobilisation
Control of Eastern Europe, but not dictatorships
Is it plausible? because the obstacles are:
Poland
Stalin did not exactly trust Churchill and Truman was still a new man to be judged
Molotov had a tendency to rub peopel up the wrong way
US attitude to communism
Partition of Germany (USSR wanted shared control, not a divided Germany)
How would USSR have developed in the 1950's and 1960's? Would Brezhnev still have been in?
Could UN have worked better?
Flashpoints?
Comments on this one?
Ivan
Werth is claiming that the split in "East" and "West" might not have happened, at least not as definitive.
Werth is quoting William Appleman Williams's definitions of Soviet leaders: Softies, Conservative and doctrinaire Revolutionaries.
The softies, inclusing Litvinov, obviously were in favour of a loan from US (the $7 billion which never came about).
The "choice" was between closer cooperation and dependency on US via loan and continued LL and security.
According to Werth, many soviet leaders had all three tendencies in varying degrees in their heads at the same time, so it is not possible to really label soviet leaders.
Litvinov poured his heart out to Werth in 1947. LItvonov claimed that in 1945, USSR had a choice between "cashing in on the goodwill in the west" and "security". Security was what Stalin and Molotov went for. Grab as much of Eastern Europe while the going was good.
Werth is claiming that the half-way mark prevailed. The conservative policy went ahead. Stalin rejected the World Revolution way, etc.
Apparantly life did become easier in 1944/5 at least in Moscov and a reconstruction loan from US would have raised the living standard dramatically, especially if the arms race got curbed together with demobilisation.
It did not exactly helpt that Truman cancelled LL even before the war ended but still asked USSR to partake in the war against Japan.
Here is my WI:
WHAT IF
LLwas not cancelled
$7 billion for USSR
US looking at USSR as a new market and starts to invest heavily
Private markets are accepted to a degree in USSR
Demobilisation
Control of Eastern Europe, but not dictatorships
Is it plausible? because the obstacles are:
Poland
Stalin did not exactly trust Churchill and Truman was still a new man to be judged
Molotov had a tendency to rub peopel up the wrong way
US attitude to communism
Partition of Germany (USSR wanted shared control, not a divided Germany)
How would USSR have developed in the 1950's and 1960's? Would Brezhnev still have been in?
Could UN have worked better?
Flashpoints?
- Vietnam?
- Korea
- Berlin
- Africa?
Comments on this one?
Ivan