USSR winning the cold war.
- Thread starter seleucusVII
- Start date
We really need to establish what we mean by a Soviet victory. The mirror of OTL's US & co victory would be Communism as the predominant form of economic organization for all major industrial powers, the global military, economic, and cultural paramountacy of the USSR, and the collapse/economic implosion/disintegration of the US. It's really hard to get a Soviet victory that complete with post-WWII PODs, harder still after the Marshall plan. A isolationist US, a neutralized Europe, and a middle east full of Soviet client states is a few battles won, not the war: not as long as Capitalist countries account for most of the world's economy: not as long as the Soviet economy is incapable of economic growth save through the addition of inputs (here's an interesting article). http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html
We probably _can't_ get a Soviet system which outperforms OTL's West economically: at best we get something like OTL's China, in which case the ideological basis for the Cold War no longer exists, since the USSR is not offering a Better Way but More Of The Same. We need to cripple the competition. Earlier we had a "No Marshall Plan" suggestion, which might be a good start: Italy perhaps goes Red, and Latin-American type voodoo economics may undermine the economies of the rest and delay the "Economic Miracle" of OTL enough to allow Communism to present itself as an equal or superior system for some decades. The real problem is crippling the US: as long as the US and the largely untouched parts of the Anglosphere (Canada, Australia, etc.) remain free and capitalistic, the USSR is going to look like crap by comprison in the long run, no matter how many third world pestholes claim to be following the tenets of Marx and Lenin.
Bruce
We probably _can't_ get a Soviet system which outperforms OTL's West economically: at best we get something like OTL's China, in which case the ideological basis for the Cold War no longer exists, since the USSR is not offering a Better Way but More Of The Same. We need to cripple the competition. Earlier we had a "No Marshall Plan" suggestion, which might be a good start: Italy perhaps goes Red, and Latin-American type voodoo economics may undermine the economies of the rest and delay the "Economic Miracle" of OTL enough to allow Communism to present itself as an equal or superior system for some decades. The real problem is crippling the US: as long as the US and the largely untouched parts of the Anglosphere (Canada, Australia, etc.) remain free and capitalistic, the USSR is going to look like crap by comprison in the long run, no matter how many third world pestholes claim to be following the tenets of Marx and Lenin.
Bruce
Maybe the USSR reforms in the 1960s or early 1970s, implementing an earlier form of Perestroika and Glasnost. A new Soviet Constitution redefines the USSR as a Social-Democratic State rather than strictly a Socialist State. Then, the USSR gives some more leeway in their economic system, like OTL China is doing. They become economically more powerful, and persist.
Also, not invading Afghanistan would certainly help. A lot.
Also, not invading Afghanistan would certainly help. A lot.
I think its still possible to come up with a POD so late like 1980 which leads to a soviet victory. Okay, I don´t talk about a reversed 1989/91 with the USA and Western Europe becoming communist till this date. But I think it´s possible that we come at the end of the eighties to a situation were the USA retreats to a "Fortress America", Western Europe accepts some kind of "finnlandisation" (including paying some kind of "tribut" to keep the soviet economy running) und the USSR is undisputed Super Power Nr. 1.
Here are some possible POD. John Paul I. lives longer. The Soviets didn´t shortly lose controll of the Afghan communists. The West German Social Democrats become the strongest Party in the 1980 election. Carter gets reelected. Labour wins the UK election in 1983/84.
Believe me, this is no "trash-the left"-scenario. It´s more the idea that well-meaning people could come to the conclusion, that if living on the brink of nuclear war would be the only way to stop a emerging soviet hegemony, then it would be better to accept this hegemony.
Here are some possible POD. John Paul I. lives longer. The Soviets didn´t shortly lose controll of the Afghan communists. The West German Social Democrats become the strongest Party in the 1980 election. Carter gets reelected. Labour wins the UK election in 1983/84.
Believe me, this is no "trash-the left"-scenario. It´s more the idea that well-meaning people could come to the conclusion, that if living on the brink of nuclear war would be the only way to stop a emerging soviet hegemony, then it would be better to accept this hegemony.
The idea that the Soviet economy was doomed to collapse is questionable at best. People tend to forget that the USSR industrialized under communism-during World War II and immediately afterwards they enjoyed the same double-digit growth rates that China is enjoying now. It wasn't until Brezhnev came along that stagnation really set in. Now, it's very unlikely the USSR would ever be able to match the US and Western Europe in terms of economic production, but only because they had a smaller population base, not because of any flaws inherent in socialism itself.
Max Sinister
Banned
McCarthyism goes on longer, extends to Western Europe; every dictatorship is propped up, as long as they're only anti-Communist, even if they have a planned economy too. The US don't stand for liberty and democracy anymore and even less for true free market, but are seen just as pro-big business.
Last edited:
This seems pretty simplistic; Russia also industrialized before WWI without capitalism, and it's not like Brezhnev dramatically altered how the soviet economy was ran.
1979 Communist radicals make an unsuccessful attempt to kill Khomeini during the Iranian revolution. Bomb making equipment is tracked back to KGB. Iranians students seize the Soviet embassy and take the diplomats hostage.
Negotiations to free the hostages fail, so in December 1979 the USSR launches a massive invasion of Iran.
23 Jan 1980: Carter announces the Carter doctrine during the state of the Union speech:
Let our position be absolutely clear: Any further attempts by any outside force to gain complete control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
1980-1982 Nevertheless Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gradually Finlandize themselves to the Soviet Union, and the oil price shoots through the roof.
Western Europe is bankrupted. Britain slashes defence spending drastically. In 1982, the much reduced Royal Navy loses a bizarre war to Argentina over some remote South Atlantic islands.
1983 Tony Benn is elected British Prime Minister of the Britain. He expels US bases. NATO begins to break up.... UK, Greece, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, have all fallen out with the US for one reason or another,
Western economies are in collapse. The USSR is getting rich on oil exports. And the Western alliance is failing.
Negotiations to free the hostages fail, so in December 1979 the USSR launches a massive invasion of Iran.
23 Jan 1980: Carter announces the Carter doctrine during the state of the Union speech:
Let our position be absolutely clear: Any further attempts by any outside force to gain complete control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
1980-1982 Nevertheless Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gradually Finlandize themselves to the Soviet Union, and the oil price shoots through the roof.
Western Europe is bankrupted. Britain slashes defence spending drastically. In 1982, the much reduced Royal Navy loses a bizarre war to Argentina over some remote South Atlantic islands.
1983 Tony Benn is elected British Prime Minister of the Britain. He expels US bases. NATO begins to break up.... UK, Greece, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, have all fallen out with the US for one reason or another,
Western economies are in collapse. The USSR is getting rich on oil exports. And the Western alliance is failing.
It is simplistic, but so are assumptions that any socialist economy is doomed.
Brezhnev didn't drastically alter how the economy was run, but he did halt the (limited) reforms that were ongoing under Kruschev, as well as allowing the black market and corruption to reach unmanageable proportions. He's certainly not solely to blame for the USSR's economic collapse, but he does bear a sizeable percentage.
Before I go any further, I'd just like to add that the above are based off of limited readings, and are susceptible to my own political biases. So if anyone with a formal background in economics cares to dispute this, I'll cede the point. Still, there seems to be a strange divide in thinking about the economy of the USSR-during WW2, it's a low-quality, high-quantity giant that the Germans unwittingly woke; but once Stalin dies, nothing can prevent the inevitable collapse.
Seems like an interesting, if somewat far-fetched scenario.
I mean, come on. Tony Benn as British PM-TONY BENN? Please.
BTW, do you see Carter being reelected?
I mean, come on. Tony Benn as British PM-TONY BENN? Please.
BTW, do you see Carter being reelected?
How Benn wins
Healey beat Benn for the deputy leadership by only 1% in 1981, despite Foot backing Healey.
Now assume
(1) Oil price is very high, Britain's economy is wrecked from what was already a tough time.
(2) Falklands War is lost, because of deeper defence cuts in early Thatcher years (because of economic situation)
(3) Foot is discredited because he supported the Falklands War (disaster) - unlike Benn who opposed it from the start
(4) Benn therefore wins leadership of Labour
(5) More of center-right labour MPs go over to SDP. David Owen fancies himself for leader and causes splits in SDP/Liberal alliance.
(6) After Falklands, Thatcher is in untenable position. Tory grandees quietly push her out. Monetarism is seens as yesterday's idea in part because of Britain's bad situation, and in part because it's associated with Thatcher. They want a safe moderate pair of hands as leader. James Prior becomes Tory leader, and does a U-turn on economic policy. Meanwhile the Tebbits of the Tory party are snipping at and undermining Prior every chance they get.
(7) The miners go on strike in September 1982... pickets close down all coal, steel, and coal-fired electricity plants. Prior tries to stop secondary picketing, but after seeing violence on TV outside a steel works, gives up as he thinks the political costs will be too high. There are powercuts by late Winter. The economy is really in trouble now.
(8) By the spring the economy is really gone down the tubes. Prior calls an election in March.
It is
Prior (Conservative) vs Steel/Jenkins (Lib/SDP) vs Benn (Labour)
Benn is the only one with a united party.
Benn is the only one who can get the miners to immediately go back to work.
Benn is the only one who was right about the Falklands...
Healey beat Benn for the deputy leadership by only 1% in 1981, despite Foot backing Healey.
Now assume
(1) Oil price is very high, Britain's economy is wrecked from what was already a tough time.
(2) Falklands War is lost, because of deeper defence cuts in early Thatcher years (because of economic situation)
(3) Foot is discredited because he supported the Falklands War (disaster) - unlike Benn who opposed it from the start
(4) Benn therefore wins leadership of Labour
(5) More of center-right labour MPs go over to SDP. David Owen fancies himself for leader and causes splits in SDP/Liberal alliance.
(6) After Falklands, Thatcher is in untenable position. Tory grandees quietly push her out. Monetarism is seens as yesterday's idea in part because of Britain's bad situation, and in part because it's associated with Thatcher. They want a safe moderate pair of hands as leader. James Prior becomes Tory leader, and does a U-turn on economic policy. Meanwhile the Tebbits of the Tory party are snipping at and undermining Prior every chance they get.
(7) The miners go on strike in September 1982... pickets close down all coal, steel, and coal-fired electricity plants. Prior tries to stop secondary picketing, but after seeing violence on TV outside a steel works, gives up as he thinks the political costs will be too high. There are powercuts by late Winter. The economy is really in trouble now.
(8) By the spring the economy is really gone down the tubes. Prior calls an election in March.
It is
Prior (Conservative) vs Steel/Jenkins (Lib/SDP) vs Benn (Labour)
Benn is the only one with a united party.
Benn is the only one who can get the miners to immediately go back to work.
Benn is the only one who was right about the Falklands...
Yes let's have Carter in the Whitehouse for a 2nd term.
In this timeline, there is no Iran hostage crisis. Ted Kennedy doesn't run against Carter in the primaries. Reagan's gaffes in the campaign are seen as much more significant. And Carter narrowly wins.
In this timeline, there is no Iran hostage crisis. Ted Kennedy doesn't run against Carter in the primaries. Reagan's gaffes in the campaign are seen as much more significant. And Carter narrowly wins.
Well then, this could have massive ramifications later on. Iraq may get to invade Kuwait unchallenged, and may have done better against an Iran more openly hostile to the USSR.
The U.S. could see its core allies reduced to Canada and Islands in an near Asia. Although, maybe the U.S.-Latin America ties get strengthened?
Maybe a new "European Mutual Security Accord" is developed by the members of the European Community?
No limits on the Sandinistas too.
The most pro-Soviet/pro-Cuban get control, and there is no US-backed opposition. Nicaragua really does become the Cuban/Soviet springboard into the Western hemisphere. Grenada Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica all fall to the communists.
South America doesn't go red, but there are super unstable military regimes [because oil price is too high wrecking their economies], and Carter is hostile to them for human rights reasons.... and instability leads to more repression, etc., By the mid 1980s, nearly all have reached an accommodation with the Soviets.
The most pro-Soviet/pro-Cuban get control, and there is no US-backed opposition. Nicaragua really does become the Cuban/Soviet springboard into the Western hemisphere. Grenada Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica all fall to the communists.
South America doesn't go red, but there are super unstable military regimes [because oil price is too high wrecking their economies], and Carter is hostile to them for human rights reasons.... and instability leads to more repression, etc., By the mid 1980s, nearly all have reached an accommodation with the Soviets.
You guys think too small. We need Communist backed Socialists taking control of Canada, leading to brutal ethnic cleansing!
(Yes, this is ASB. So, probably, is Communism rolling across Latin America).
Those who think Carter's an idiot and would lie back as Communism rolled across the Americas may want to consider that he began shipping arms to Afghanistan in 1979.
And he issued a grain embargo, cutting of exports of grain from the USA to the USSR.
But, hey! Carter, deluded fool!
Umm.
Err.
The USSR immediately gets bogged down in something worse than Afghanistan, and the US supplies the Iranians with weapons, along with Iraq, where Saddam plays a role analogous to Pakistan.
I don't see why they Finlandize themselves.
Unfortunately for the Warsaw Pact, the Canadian, American, and Australian grain embargoes cause rioting like in OTL Poland, and by 1985 the cry of Revolution once again echoes through Moscow.
(Yes, this is ASB. So, probably, is Communism rolling across Latin America).
Those who think Carter's an idiot and would lie back as Communism rolled across the Americas may want to consider that he began shipping arms to Afghanistan in 1979.
And he issued a grain embargo, cutting of exports of grain from the USA to the USSR.
But, hey! Carter, deluded fool!
Umm.
Err.
The USSR immediately gets bogged down in something worse than Afghanistan, and the US supplies the Iranians with weapons, along with Iraq, where Saddam plays a role analogous to Pakistan.
I don't see why they Finlandize themselves.
Unfortunately for the Warsaw Pact, the Canadian, American, and Australian grain embargoes cause rioting like in OTL Poland, and by 1985 the cry of Revolution once again echoes through Moscow.
Last edited:
I agree that this is a bit much, but the question may be how much can he (or his successors) do? Furthermore, some of this would take years to develop.
Yes let's have a Mexican civil war. Carter reluctantly sends US forces to prop up the Mexican government, which only enflames the civil war.
Meanwhile, Comecon is getting rich on jacked up prices for natural resources sold to Europe. The loans to Poland, Romania, etc., are practically forgiven.
The US delays and then cancels the space shuttle program, for cost reasons, during Carter's 2nd term. It never flies. Meanwhile, thanks to the Soviet economic bonanza, the Soviet space program is well-funded and accelerated. The Soviet Buran shuttle flies in 1984.
There is no victory for "marketing ideas" in the 1980s. Socialism (as in was in many countries during the 1940s - 1970s) is seen as the wave of the future.
Governments around the world look at the USSR, and see its economic success, its strong military, and its technological success (e.g. Buran)... and emulate its socialist economic programs (instead of emulating Thatcherism as in OTL).
Of course, in capitalist countries, these "socialist reforms" make things even worse. Economists argue about it, but a common consensus, is that the answer is more "socialist reforms", not less.
With their ideology considered bankrupt by many, the Republican Party's support greatly decreases in the US. In 1984 and 1988, a left-leaning Democrat (who?) is elected President. He sees his job as implementing some "socialist reforms", while retaining the US democratic system, and does so at an accelerating rate through the late 1980s.
In 1989, the President withdraws the last US forces from Mexico.
In 1990, the US's last few remaining European allies are completely economically bankrupt. The Spanish military junta (ruled since the early 1980s) are overthrown in a violent revolution. There are riots in the streets of West Germany.... which is eventually peacefully is absorbed into the GDR. etc.
Communists make a very modest impact in the 1990 US elections, a win 3 seats (2 in California, 1 in Massachusetts) in the House of Representatives.
In 1991, right-wing forces in the US attempt a military coup....
Meanwhile, Comecon is getting rich on jacked up prices for natural resources sold to Europe. The loans to Poland, Romania, etc., are practically forgiven.
The US delays and then cancels the space shuttle program, for cost reasons, during Carter's 2nd term. It never flies. Meanwhile, thanks to the Soviet economic bonanza, the Soviet space program is well-funded and accelerated. The Soviet Buran shuttle flies in 1984.
There is no victory for "marketing ideas" in the 1980s. Socialism (as in was in many countries during the 1940s - 1970s) is seen as the wave of the future.
Governments around the world look at the USSR, and see its economic success, its strong military, and its technological success (e.g. Buran)... and emulate its socialist economic programs (instead of emulating Thatcherism as in OTL).
Of course, in capitalist countries, these "socialist reforms" make things even worse. Economists argue about it, but a common consensus, is that the answer is more "socialist reforms", not less.
With their ideology considered bankrupt by many, the Republican Party's support greatly decreases in the US. In 1984 and 1988, a left-leaning Democrat (who?) is elected President. He sees his job as implementing some "socialist reforms", while retaining the US democratic system, and does so at an accelerating rate through the late 1980s.
In 1989, the President withdraws the last US forces from Mexico.
In 1990, the US's last few remaining European allies are completely economically bankrupt. The Spanish military junta (ruled since the early 1980s) are overthrown in a violent revolution. There are riots in the streets of West Germany.... which is eventually peacefully is absorbed into the GDR. etc.
Communists make a very modest impact in the 1990 US elections, a win 3 seats (2 in California, 1 in Massachusetts) in the House of Representatives.
In 1991, right-wing forces in the US attempt a military coup....
The Grain embargo had an immediate effect OTL, when done by just America. It had an interesting effect in spurring the formation of Solidarity in Poland, and we started supplying Afghanistan almost immediately.
And, of course, 1982-1983 were years of poor harvests in the USSR OTL.
You say you want a revolution, well you know...
In this TL, the Soviet attack on Iran is seen as justified even by many nations... it was after all to rescue hostages. Australia and Canada also see an economic opportunity, so they increase grain exports when the US imposes an embargo.
Iraq is a Soviet not a US ally. Iraq gets Arabistan from Iran.
US arms to Iran can only come in through Turkey (very mountaineous border), through Pakistan (very hostile desert border along way from anywhere), or by sea (but Soviets control the coast, and can monitor anything going through the Straits of Hormuz). The Iranian resistance is ineffective, and there are left-wing elements in the early Iranian revolution who can accommodate with a pro-Soviet regime.
As for Kuwait, Saudi, they have a massive Soviet/Iraqi army sitting on their borders. In the case of Saudi, the southern border with Yemen too. An accommodation is not such a dumb strategy. Don't forget, as late as 1987 in OTL, after the US initially refused to reflag Kuwait tankers, the Kuwaitis approached the Soviets.
Iraq is a Soviet not a US ally. Iraq gets Arabistan from Iran.
US arms to Iran can only come in through Turkey (very mountaineous border), through Pakistan (very hostile desert border along way from anywhere), or by sea (but Soviets control the coast, and can monitor anything going through the Straits of Hormuz). The Iranian resistance is ineffective, and there are left-wing elements in the early Iranian revolution who can accommodate with a pro-Soviet regime.
As for Kuwait, Saudi, they have a massive Soviet/Iraqi army sitting on their borders. In the case of Saudi, the southern border with Yemen too. An accommodation is not such a dumb strategy. Don't forget, as late as 1987 in OTL, after the US initially refused to reflag Kuwait tankers, the Kuwaitis approached the Soviets.