What if the USSR wins the Cold War without the US collapsing?

Keenir

Banned
What if the US loses the Cold War in a Britain-esque way...we simply can't afford to keep at the top?
(literally, in terms of finances; like the UK after WW2, no longer at the top of the world)


This idea came to me when I wondered "would 9/11 have been directed against the Soviets if they were the lone superpower?"

...but I didn't want the US collapsing like the OTL USSR did, so I figured a bit of money problems might force us to settle for second place (we'd still be higher than everyone else, at least initially)
 
There is no Brehznev stagnation, and there are a series of Soviet leaders with the energy and intelligence to grow the Soviet economy. Especially the energy, to guide military research (or at least decide the go-ahead on projects), and deal with opponents. Khrushchev was fairly able, any ministry that got in his way was reorganized.


It might not happen after Mathias Rust embarrassed the soviet military, so it's unlikely that the Soviet 9/11 would involve planes. Guns & bombs smuggled through the black market used to attack Red Square?

But if the Soviet military somehow became incompetent enough to not deal with another civilian aircraft flying over it's territory (or Mathias Rust was shot down as an American spyplane), then the Kremlin would have a large hole in it (the economic & political centers of a nation seem to be the usual terrorist targets), and Iran might be invaded. Along with Afghanistan, again.
 
Last edited:
How much would the butterfly effect change a 9/11 equivalent event in a Soviet Cold War win though? Is there a chance Islamic extremism as well as terrorism wouldn't exist to the magnitudes of OTL in such a world, preventing such an occurence?

I heard somewhere that Al-Qaeda were originally backed by the US during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. A Soviet Cold War win could therefore butterfly the expansion of the Al-Qaeda movement, putting a significant dent in the extent of terrorism caused by such groups.

Maybe Chechen rebels could rise up and form a similar threat to Russia in the Soviet-win world though?
 
I wouldn't say so. The Tamil rebels, despite fighting a civil war, as opposed to guerrilla or otherwise, still used suicide bombers so well, that some of their tactics were adopted by rebels around the world.
 

Neil Craig

Banned
If you are assuming Kruschev didn't fall & was able to reform the USSR in an innovative way (another New Economic Policy & significant free enterprise which I think would bec required) then a USSR growing faster than western countries that were closing their nuclear power generators, increasing regulation & big government is quite possible.

I think that either means the USSR gets to the Moon first or keeps going when Americans have decided to "not to spend money in space till we have fixed everything on Earth".

A few decades of that would see Soviets powering the world with solar power satellites & mining the asteroids. No need for wars since western economic eclipse would be automaticbut in most ways for most of the world it would be a considerable improvement.
 
The problem with any victorious USSR TL is that you need a major change in the Soviet system on a deep level. I'm not just talking about economic policy, foreign and military philosophy were also flawed. Now of course it is always possible for the western powers to mess things up enough for them selves to pave the way for the Soviet cold war victory, but really the political systems of the west were much more self correcting, so if you get a President in the US who messes things up, he will get voted out of office, or at the very least he will be out of office in 8 years anyways. Meanwhile if the soviets get a premier in power who is innefective it isn't as easy to get rid of him, or if they get an effective one who pisses off enough folks in the politburo then you'll lose him with no good done. I'm not saying that the SU couldn't win the cold war, but you would most likely need a POD at least as far back as WWII for the victory to not be ASB.
 
If you are assuming Kruschev didn't fall & was able to reform the USSR in an innovative way (another New Economic Policy & significant free enterprise which I think would bec required) then a USSR growing faster than western countries that were closing their nuclear power generators, increasing regulation & big government is quite possible.

I think that either means the USSR gets to the Moon first or keeps going when Americans have decided to "not to spend money in space till we have fixed everything on Earth".

A few decades of that would see Soviets powering the world with solar power satellites & mining the asteroids. No need for wars since western economic eclipse would be automaticbut in most ways for most of the world it would be a considerable improvement.
I wouldn't say that much progress in a few decades. Maybe a bigger International Space Station staffed mostly by Russians and a temporary Moon base for occasional visits and experiments.


Dan Reilly: I'd say a PoD before Stalin ruled the Soviet Union. Perhaps as a result of Lenin's Testament he loses in the power struggles and someone else rules.
 
Maybe we can have a cold war without destalinization and the Sino-Soviet Split, and obviously no "thaw" in the 50s.

The US gets the "we can't compromise with these fuckers, so destroy them all" message, and pig-headed anti-communism guides all US foreign policy instead of realpolitik or even common sense. Add to that, the soviets getting to moon first, which delivers massive blow to the US pride. So much so that they funnel tons of money to beat the soviets to Mars, while the soviets focus on Earth... especially the third world, where communist or pro-soviet governments take over while The US ails with a supersized Vietnam syndrome. Even the stars and stripes on the Red Planet is considered a Pyrrhic victory. The US citizens get tired of fighting communists all over the world, whereas continuing Stalinism puts the lid on all soviet dissent. Reform does come China-like in the 80s and the Soviet-Chinese bloc proceed together to become the manufacturing facility, not of the USA but of the entire third world making it financial suicide for any third-world leader to switch allegiances. The US economy never becomes what it is in OTL, without cheap labor-- and the US products are not cheap enough to be exported due to labor costs. The right tries to keep labor costs down by voting down any minimum wage legislation and lefties slide even deeper into 'unpatriotic' socialism-- leading some nutjob fascist high enough in the republican party circles to be elected the most disastrous president in US history who alienates the last remaining US allies. The backlash is to pretty much end all funding to counter-communist operation around the world, and slide into isolationism. The Communist bloc in the meanwhile, innovates further with the "state-capitalist" model, becoming prosperous enough to consider lifting certain repressive measures, although at a snails pace. Although, there is no "end" of the cold war in ATL By the 2010s, most governments are allied to Either the Soviets or the Chinese, and political left in the US is openly pro-soviet.
 
Sorry...

I'm afraid the Soviet economy was pretty wimpy. You're hardly alone in missing that knowledge, of course - it's not the sort of thing that's easy to explain in a course, unless it has econ prereqs.

And, the Soviets had a much heavier military occupation burden because they had the last big empire there was, while we only had the bear the costs of opposing the Soviets from friendly bases. In fact, the Soviets also faced the British trouble of a comparatively smallish minority (white Russians) needing to impose on their huge empire, while the US is by design and lots of work a multiethnic nation; since WW2, we've also forsaken the burdens of imperialism.

To give a taste of how impractical Communist economics was, Churchill gave a sarcastic speech when the Soviets reintroced the rouble after a long period, congratulating Lenin for finally understanding about the uses of currencies so late in his life. Communists were only able to even do the most basic thing of FEEDING their people by quietly reintroducing limited capitalism. They were able to make plenty of tanks and airplanes, albeit more and more obsolete ones, but were terrible at everything else - food, shelter, shoes, transport.

Democracy and capitalism's the best historical combination for making money and innovation, while Communism and the oligarchic aristocracy of the Communist Party was the worst. But, it's hard to figure out how well the Communists did, since not one of their statistics could be trusted.

Sorry....
 
Even ignoring economic ideology and looking at the Cold War purely in geostrategic terms, the Soviets have a major disadvantage in terms of port access and resources, or at least ability to extract said resources.

To be honest the Soviet would be improved ten-fold if a Chinese style system of government, based on a true technocratic oligarchy, was introduced, say Stalin is foiled and the Politburo remains a collective force, even post-Stalin as a backlash. Such a system would ensure self-correcting, at least in terms of retaining the Party's position while also encouraging greater competition and innovation from lower-level apparatchniks.

No Sino-Soviet split is also crucial, while greater acess to the sea, say via a friendly Iran or Turkey, would be a massive boon. Soviet moon landing would help but isn't nessecary. A neutral, united Germany would remove alot of Cold War tension both militarily but also the open sore that was two Germanies side by side showing the blatant flaws of Marxist-Leninism, the Berlin Wall the obvious example.

Taking an example from Yugoslavia (no split with Tito is a nice idea, access to the Adriatic!) limited emigration control would not only act as a safety valve against dissenters but many would go to Western Europe for seasonal work, bringing their fat capitalist pay cheques back home to spend (this was a key aide to Yugoslavia's relative affluence). This also drains the West of a bit of economic impulse, not much but every little helps!

Also Afghanistan either doesn't happen (less direct intervention could have easily gernered a stable if not communist, at least pro-Kremlin regime in Kabul) or no foriegn intervention. It will help save a alot of rubles
 
Maybe no Stalin leads to much better Red Army, which leads to better performance in WW2. Thus the bigger German defeats create more dissension within the top echelons of the Wehrmacht. Therefore, there is more support for the July 20 plot, less indecision and backstabbing against the plotters, and because there is less indecision they activate the bomb on July 15, and luckily although Hitler was called away he doesn't reach the door in time and is incinerated along with Himmler, Goering, and many others. Valkyrie is a total success, and Beck negotiates with the Politburo, Roosevelt, and Churchill for a favorable and fair peace, which the Politburo persuades Roosevelt and coerces Churchill into agreeing with. Germany keep Anschluss areas, but pays heavy reparations, and their scientists are forced to give up all secret. Nazis who weren't summarily executed are turned over. East Prussia is still German, and a new government organized along Weimar-lines is instituted. Germany is to remain a buffer state between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and both sides make damn sure they stay neutral.

Pacific campaign ends much as it did like in OTL, but earlier and with signifigantly less Chinese casualties, with the Red Army supporting the communists in Manchuria. The Cold War begins like in OTL too, with Space Race and Red Scare and all. CCP takes all of the Chinese mainland, KMT in Taiwan. Mao begins the Great Leap Forward, and tensions rise with the USSR until Deng Xiaoping and other enemies of Mao get sickened by the failure of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, putting Mao out of power and imprisoning him for being 'counter-revolutionary' ironically enough, beating Mao Zedong to the punch. With a more Soviet-friendly (and sane) Chinese government, Sino-Soviet split is avoided. Kruschev or some other progressive premier allows for more immigration and other reforms.

Due to lack of Stalin the USSR is already dramatically different. Under Lenin the goverment was extremely liberal, with some personal freedoms even the West did not have (Lenin legalized every aspect of homosexuality I've heard, which was reversed by Stalin). Of course the press is still stifled, but it resembles modern China of OTL. The USA, during the Red Scare, tries to distance itself away from every aspect of the USSR, and due to less extreme Russia, America is the extreme one. Liberal politicians are stifled by either McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, or more simply the right-wing media as would be most common. The USA as a whole goes even further right than it did in OTL 50's, and is less popular.

Further down the line, Korean War is roughly similar to OTL, but less Soviet aid is sent and the US and South Korea suffer a bit less. However more reactionary US perhaps leads to them maybe even aiding S. Korean massacres of communist-sympathisers. This would hurt their world image.

By the time the Vietnam War comes around, less people are willing to help the extremist USA, and only their Asian allies give any assistance. The USA is even more aggressive, and launches more direct attacks on North Vietnam. However the USSR gives even more aid and so the USA suffers greater casualties because the NVA is better equipped and US tactics are worse and more direct. The right-wing leadership of America is shattered and more liberal politicians are elected as a result.

Finally, (if) when the Afghan War pops up with the Soviets trying to assist their communist Afghan allies, the more liberal USA doesn't give so much help. Also, perhaps Charlie Wilson is indicted and arrested on drug charges. Therefore possibly no US help.

How's that? Is it good, or at least plausible? Or should I quit?
 

Neil Craig

Banned
Jkay the USSR may have had a crap economy when it collapsed but remeber Stalin built up, from nothing, an economy that far out produced Germany in tanks, aircraft etc & went on to be first in space. What happened is (A) bureaucratic sclerosis after Stalin died, (B) continuing to pour 10% of GNP into the military - imagine if that had been invested in making cars (C) missing out on the computer revolution from the 1970s.

Ryakov I think you underestimate the opportunities we have missed over the last 40 years. In 1929 the world's largest liquid fueled rocket flew 90 ft. In 1969 it took 3 men to the Moon. We wouldn't have had to keep up that rate of progress to now have men on Pluto let alone the solar power satellites & asteroid mining I suggested. Remember that, before it failed, communism was a very forward looking idealogy built on the concept of progress & our great technological future which is part of the reason they were so enthusiastic about space. I also think it is part of the reason it cracked so completely - that unlike other religions it promised results here on Earth so that it could be seen when it didn't deliver.
 
More like 30 % of GNP.

And yes, imagine if the Soviets had produced fertilizers instead of explosives, if they had built combined harvesters instead of tanks, if there hadn't been six million men permanently in the Red Army, etc.

Chrustjev realized this, that's why he wanted to achieve missile parity so that military spending could be decreased. Instead Brezhnev came to power, put a lid on society thereby destroyed the socialist block.
 
It's economy wasnt bad in terms of growth plus it did suffer major shocks like WW2. People tend to forget that the U.S.S.R's economy was 2nd only to the US in terms of output. It's lack of good ports wasnt as serious as has been made out. They could move into the Med and through Suez and straits of gibraltar. They pretty good pacific ports and free access to those of their War-Pac allies.

The Soviets missing out on the computer revolution from the 196/70's was a major loss by the time they go to the 80's, and arms spending was more like 15 to 20% of GDP.
 

Neil Craig

Banned
Fair point about the percentages - I think 10% was an official Soviet figure but apart from having reason to lie it doesn't include what the 6 million conscripts should have been producing. Up to the death of Stalin Russia had some of the world's best growth but he did it by starving the peasants. There is a good argument that he was right to, particularly bearing in mind Hitler's intention to kill almost everybody. We are fortunate no such dilemma ever faced us.
 
Perhaps if the USSR focused some of its defensive spending less on power projection and more on strict defense. Less a blue-water navy, more short range ships. Less long-range bombers, more air defense.
 
Jkay the USSR may have had a crap economy when it collapsed but remeber Stalin built up, from nothing, an economy that far out produced Germany in tanks, aircraft etc & went on to be first in space. What happened is (A) bureaucratic sclerosis after Stalin died, (B) continuing to pour 10% of GNP into the military - imagine if that had been invested in making cars (C) missing out on the computer revolution from the 1970s.

The real problem for SU is that a planned economy is very inefficient when not producing 10 000 tanks, a national highway system, space race or such. Investing in cars would just lead to internal powerstruggles among the designers, producers and the politicians, and probably forget things like gas stations. Like the Soviet nail factory that delivered their quota of 15 tonnes of nail in one gigantic nail. Totally usesless, but according to plan ...

The planning organisation ignored computers, and as a result no computers were built (or rather: computers were delayed and, when SU started to build them, lousy, few and for the elite). While in the West both Pentagon, the president and IBM could decide that a personal computer was idiotic, but someone did build a personal computer, a demand for personal computers appeared and the PC was born. That happened many times in both the SU and the West. And it had nothing to do with Stalin or burocracy, but with the very basis of the Soviet Unions ideology.

Unless the SU changed as much as China or South Africa did they were doomed. Even with that change SU has a lot of problem already mentioned: de facto occupaying a lot of countries, too much money to an inefficient military, fewer "white russians" and more central asians, falling behind the US in population, nationalism (the Baltic states) and higher education/research.
 

Neil Craig

Banned
If you are assuming Kruschev didn't fall & was able to reform the USSR in an innovative way (another New Economic Policy & significant free enterprise which I think would bec required) then a USSR growing faster than western countries that were closing their nuclear power generators, increasing regulation & big government is quite possible.]

Yes Superkuf I had assumed a marketward shift. Ilso think a Soviet victory requires significant misrule by western leaders but, whatever the theoretical advantages of what passes for democracy here the record shows such mismanagement. The current global warming scare is clearly much more damaging than Lysenkoism ever was & a USSR with extensive nuclear electricity would have (as indeed Russia & China do have) an immense economic advantage over western countries who refuse to countenance nuclear & spend enormous amounts on windmills. The race between America & the USSR was not between to unrestrained runners but between one running a sack race (USA) & another tied up in red tape & carrying an anvil.
 
Top