Inspired by this thread:https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/is-a-maoist-us-alliance-feasible.419177/

So with a POD no sooner than 1945, though it can either before or after WWII ends for all I care, how can you make the OTL Cold War less about the ideologies of Communism vs. Capitalism, and more about American vs. Soviet interests that cross ideological lines (in other words, ideology be damned)?

So how can the effect of a less ideological but still more or less tense Cold War of the 20th century effect world politics?

Bonus points for getting Maoist China against the USSR earlier than OTL's 1961.
 
Have the realists dominate US foreign policy. There whole thing was that state geopolitical interests were effectively separate from ideological concerns and a lot of them were very critical of what they saw as examples of needless Liberal Imperialism such as the Vietnam War.
 
That's what it actually was. That's why the US put up with anticommunist dictatorships if they were anticommunist, and why the Soviets kept state capitalism and a domineering attitude towards its satellite states.
Later in OTL Cold War they did, past the 1960's I argue; though the one I'm asking is one that starts off mostly non-ideological in nature just after WWII.
 

Deleted member 97083

Later in OTL Cold War they did, past the 1960's I argue; though the one I'm asking is one that starts off mostly non-ideological in nature just after WWII.
Well even in 1945 it was pretty much that way. Extending capitalism was for the economic self-interest of the US, extending communism was in the geopolitical interest of the USSR.

In the USSR sphere, Stalin betrayed his own "socialism in one country" idea by creating communist satellite states. Let alone how having puppet states at all and essentially creating an empire, was far from Marx's manifesto.

In the US and its allies, necessity called for the Marshall Plan, the Interstate Highway System, and other social democrat policies and public investment which weren't exactly laissez-faire capitalism.

Also 2,000,000+ German POWs were used as forced laborers for a few years, on both sides, and were even traded around between countries as if it was still wartime. Not exactly in-line with liberal democracy in the West or Marxism in the East.

The Soviets' Berlin Blockade was more imperialist than socialist.

In 1952, Stalin suggested creating a neutral reunified Germany, which the West declined. It wasn't exactly communist for Stalin to suggest a neutral Germany, while the West declining the offer to have a larger market, and cheaper military, wasn't the most capitalist thing possible.

It was all about self-interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nearly impossible. The Communists would have had to layoff the propaganda of the inherent superiority of Communism and the inevitable failure of capitalism for this to occur. But then, how could they ask their citizens to sacrifice so much if communism didnt offer something superior? They kind of backed themselves into a corner on that one. And it doesnt leave a whole lot of room for the west to take it as anything less than an existential threat either.

Kennan's communique from Moscow in 1946 nicely lays out what many were thinking. And these views didnt emerge in the span of merely a year.
 
Last edited:
Well even in 1945 it was pretty much that way. Extending capitalism was for the economic self-interest of the US, extending communism was in the geopolitical interest of the USSR.

In the USSR sphere, Stalin betrayed his own "socialism in one country" idea by creating communist satellite states. Let alone how having puppet states at all and essentially creating an empire, was far from Marx's manifesto.

Yes but Stalin still believed in Communism and the inevitable demise of capitalism. And I would go further by suggesting that not only was it in self interest to extend their systems but it was almost existential.

In the US and its allies, necessity called for the Marshall Plan, the Interstate Highway System, and other social democrat policies and public investment which weren't exactly laissez-faire capitalism.

Also 2,000,000+ German POWs were used as forced laborers for a few years, on both sides, and were even traded around between countries as if it was still wartime. Not exactly in-line with liberal democracy in the West or Marxism in the East.

The Soviets' Berlin Blockade was more imperialist than socialist.

I think you are making categorical distinctions that are pretty minor. New Deal economic polices didnt exactly undermine democratic capitalism as much as it softened it. The German POW thing is a red herring. And the Berlin Blockade being imperialist versus socialist is kind of irrelevant. The confrontation was motivated by ideological differences.

In 1952, Stalin suggested creating a neutral reunified Germany, which the West declined. It wasn't exactly communist for Stalin to suggest a neutral Germany, while the West declining the offer to have a larger market, and cheaper military, wasn't the most capitalist thing possible.

It was all about self-interest.

Stalin offering a reunified Germany was a political bluff and everyone knew it.
 
Top