WI: (Realistic) Soviet Victory in the Cold War

Toraach

Banned
OK,
1. Please read the first Part again (its clearly not OTL).

2. As I said, its just ONE timeline. Of course it included butterflies.

In my opinion (after I thought about this for a quite long time), the best ways for the USSR to win the cold war, was to
1. Outproduce the US long term
2. Have a more successfull communist agitation in the west (which was not that unlikely, considering how successfull the communists were in some western countries OTL).
1. It was just impossible, and any workers' councils and soviet super OGAS computers could not help in that regard (but, but that was not THE real communism, :D :D )
2. That was the most important, and I think they were highly succesful in that regard.

Well, there came another idea into my mind:

The Cold War was a battle of ideology and influence between the USSR and the USA.

The battle for influence was heavily fought for, mostly in the third world. See, the third world provides 1. A lot of geopolitically crucial spots 2. An ocean of cheap labour 3. Markets to sell products to and 4. Vast ressources which both blocs, but especially the west, were heavily dependent on.

The US fought those conflicts (both military and diplomatic) mostly to keep their neo-collonies, while the east waged them to gain more trading partners and thus weaken western sanctions against it.

Both sides spent immense amounts of money to subsidize third world regimes in exchange for allegiance, or arm them in some proxy war.

In OTL, the USSR was on the way to win the battle for the third world. Just look at those maps (the first is from the 50s, the other from the 80s).

The main reason, why many people in the third world were sympatetic to the USSR and Socialism, was that the USSR fought consequently against western imperialism and neo-collonialism.

So the USSR could have won, by spending even more money to subsidize third world nations, thus winning the battle for the third world earlier. Or they could have won by just surviving and continuing like it went, untill most of the third world is pro-soviet.

Then, when the third world is soviet-alligned, the eastern bloc could place sanctions on the west. Without the exploitation of third worlds cheap labour and ressources, and with the loss of a lot of foreign markets, the US and western european economies will collapse completely.

Adopting Socialism or at least becoming pro-soviet, is the only option they would have to remove the sanctions and end the poverty caused by the crisis. And at this point Soviet-Style-Socialism will become immensly popular in the west.
No, no, no.
There wasn't a thing like the one, homonegous third world, which only dreamt about being liberated from evil white american neocolonial imperialists. There were huge areas of the world, which had diffrent interests, allies, and cultural views. What you wrote is inderectly repeating a typical communist "liberation" propaganda from Africa or whatever. Also if I can agree about crucial spots and ressources, I cannot agree about markets and oceans of cheal labour. Markets - they are important when you could sell anything on them, and very poor areas don't provide much consumers, and economy and international trade during that period was much smaller than now. Cheap labour? And why did they need it? They have enough workers home, yet even still wast "oceans" of human resources in those countries of cheap labour are unused. Well, the US if really needed cheap labour during that period had Mexico, not need for "oceans".
The Soviet Empire didn't fought for gaining more trade partners, just to spread their ideology, and by the way also for gaining better geostrategic position (so example supporting Egypt, interests in Yemen and the Horn of Africa), but the ideology was the primarly motive for them. It wasn't a normal state, which had interests and promote them and defeats its positions. It was an ideological jugenerault, which operated fueled by its sick ideology, which ideology's inherit economical flaws finally lead to its demise. The Soviet Union was not unlikely to the Third Reich, that's the truth which neaded to be faced. When the British Empire, the United States they had interests, which were logical, the SU or the Third Reich looked at the world throught totally diffrent glasses, non comparable.
Also an aspect of trading partners in the Third World for the Soviet Empire, it was unnecessary, they didn't have much to trande, except arms. Economic realities in their the most organized european external empire were that bad and stupid, so it was impossible for them to create a viable trade/economic world around the whole world. The SU drowe a lot of money in supporting "liberation", when the USA also lost a lot of money there, but at least the US had sources of money, and their population had a high living standard. When in the SU population lived in bad conditions (yes, yes, I know about so super soviet callorites equal to american consumption ). I know how looked that in Poland, and living conditions in the Soviet Union were worse, really, really worse. Even in the richest european republics. Do you know what was the biggest economical succes of socialist economy in Poland? A development of rural areas. Why did it happen? Thanks to socialism? Partialy, yes, partliany no. Yes, because in a planed economy prices of agricultural products were just as anything else totally crazy and set by the state, so they were high and allowed peasants to live earn relativly good even from small plots of land, like 4 hectars, and having two or three cows, and adding to that some work in a real economy, they had even enough money to built brick/airbrick houses and barns. But it was against socialism, why? Because the commies here wanted to collectivize agriculture, but they failed and after 1956 the polish version of kolkhozes dissolved, yes independent peasants were salt in wounds for the Party still, and to the nearly very end, the Party declared the need of collectivization, but luckily they didn't had will to do it.

The reality is that the Soviet Union didn't have anything to offer, except propaganda babling about bad imperialists. It is only for you if you believe in that. If in the Third World they wanted to be rich, they needed to work hard, have a good organization, instead of blaming all on imperialists. Be like asian tigers, not like India, which after the independence had a failled economical policy, which only changes in 1990, and this country started to grow.
 
1. It was just impossible, and any workers' councils and soviet super OGAS computers could not help in that regard (but, but that was not THE real communism, :D :D )

Ok, the integration workers councils are a very complex topic. But OGAS, was not just a method of more efficient planning, but of automatization. The Soviets had the potential to automize a lot of their productions, but some conservative party cadres prevented this, to save their power. If it was implemeted, it would give the USSR an immense economic boom, and would free a large part of workforce, which could be used in other parts of the economy. So it would have helped. Oh and by the way, this 'It wasn't real communism' is only an argument brought up by a few left communists. Most commies dont bring this up, but rather analyse what really went right or wrong in those states.

No, no, no.
There wasn't a thing like the one, homonegous third world, which only dreamt about being liberated from evil white american neocolonial imperialists.
There were huge areas of the world, which had diffrent interests, allies, and cultural views. What you wrote is inderectly repeating a typical communist "liberation" propaganda from Africa or whatever.
Of course there is no homogenous third world. But all third world nations have some things in common. They are mostly poor, and are in risk of becoming a victim of capitalist neo-collonialism.

Neo-collonialism is an act, where capitalist corporations invest into a third world country and sell their products there a lot cheaper than regional market prices. With that, they destroy the whole national economy and make this nation completely dependent on them. Then they can exploit the nations resourches, exploit its workforce, use it as market and build military bases there.

Because if this government doesnt allow this to happen, the capitalists can easily withdraw their investment and destroy the national economy. And if you ask 'Well, why does'nt this country then invite others to invest in its economy?', there were examples where this happened, or where the government wanted to end neo-collonialism as a whole in this nation. Chile, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, Vietnam, China, etc.

The list is very long. And in everyone of thos e cases, the capitalists and capitalist states have sponsored coups, invaded or backed a reactionary government. Cause there are allways people who would like to have power, regardless who funded them.

Capitalism is an economic system based on profit. And reality shows that slave labour and cheap resources are allways profitable

The USSR and the other communist bloc nations actively funded anti-neo-collonialist movements.



Also if I can agree about crucial spots and ressources, I cannot agree about markets and oceans of cheal labour. Markets - they are important when you could sell anything on them, and very poor areas don't provide much consumers, and economy and international trade during that period was much smaller than now. Cheap labour? And why did they need it? They have enough workers home, yet even still wast "oceans" of human resources in those countries of cheap labour are unused. Well, the US if really needed cheap labour during that period had Mexico, not need for "oceans".

OK, about markets. Third world markets, then and today, still play an important role in international economics. Products, which were not bought in the first world
(Which are quite a lot), are then shipped to the third world , where they are sold at very low prices. This serves two reasons:
1. To gain at least some profits from those products and
2. To undercut the local prices (which, again, makes the countries dependent , and forces the into neo-colonial exploitation).

And on the question of 'why did'nt they just use their workers at home'? Because americans would not work under slavery-like relations. Why do you think its called 'cheap' labour? And about the Mexico example, of course each nation has its national circumstances (not every nation is arable, not every nation has oil or gas), so different corporations operate in different countries (or at least have their focus there). Also there is a relation between, how jobs are payed, and how people in those jobs are educated. Because if you are educated AND this education is needed (if its not needed, than you have to work in worse paid jobs), then you will be of value.

In Mexico people were not educates that well, but also not as bad as in other third world nations (on average), and they had better living conditions than other poor states. Because they served another use. And if you have a lot of cheap labour, you can treat your workers very badly, and they cant do anything about it, cause if they do, you have an mass of unemployed or small farmers, who can barely survive, who would take their place. Umemployment or at least underemployment are a key thing inherent in capitalism, as they serve a specific use.

On your claim that international trade wasn't that important back then, well, thats not really true. Sums of money from the trade were not as large, but economies were smaller, too. Foreign trade in this time served the same use, and followed the same rules, which it does today (at least between capitalist nations).

The Soviet Empire didn't fought for gaining more trade partners, just to spread their ideology, and by the way also for gaining better geostrategic position (so example supporting Egypt, interests in Yemen and the Horn of Africa), but the ideology was the primarly motive for them. It wasn't a normal state, which had interests and promote them and defeats its positions. It was an ideological jugenerault, which operated fueled by its sick ideology, which ideology's inherit economical flaws finally lead to its demise.

Oh yeas it did. They Soviet Union suffered badly from western economic sanctions, by being not able to use ressources or trade with nations freely (only with US dollars, which the ruble was not freely exchangeable into). The main reason why people in the eastern bloc didnt have some things like tropical fruits, special Cheese, western consumer goods, etc, was because the west didnt allow them to buy those goods (hm due to a miracle, Cuban tropical fruits COULD be bought in the communist bloc).

And do you really think, all the the communist leadership belived in the ideology? Or that most of the Nazis did? Or that the elites in the west today do today? Ideology is the perfect tool to legitimize your power. Or the power of your clique.
Of course there were some in the leadership, which belived what they said, but many just used it as a tool.

And on the trading partners, the USSRs imports only accounted for 4% of its GNP, just like its exports. But these 4% were important, especially for certain consuler products and ressources. And every country that used rubles as its trading curency, helped strenghen the soviet economic influence on the worlds stage.

Oh, and on the Communist system. I will talk about this later, but I want to say this: The USSR and the communist bloc had a higher economic growth than the US and the west, and they had faster growing living standarts (yes they had and the people saw this. The problem is, that the communist bloc had a completely different historical backround than the west. Western europe had its industrial revolution in the late 1700s. The US around 1800. The USSR had its own in the 1930, much of the other eastern bloc had their industrialisation in the 1950s. The USA and Western European nations were major imperialist powers, while ALL of the eastern bloc nations (except for the Russian SFSR) were collonies of foreign nations). In the 80s many of the communist nations faced economic crissis (not all). The USSR and Poland faced a serious agricultural crissis due to mistakes and bad harvests, while Romanis and Hungary faced crisis because of the state debts. Living standarts in some parts decreasd, but increased in others aswell.
And the communist bloc would have come out of that crisis a few years later. Every crisis ends, state debts are paid off and pollicy errors reversed (the last point is difficult, but the Soviets had a lot of technocracy integrated into their system).
And, why should a planned economy not work? In todays China, 350 million people work in the state sector, and the state owns the larger part in many joint ventures. Still, the PR. China has the largest economy in the world and an economic growth, three tumes higher than that of the US and Germany.

The Soviet Union was not unlikely to the Third Reich...

The Soviet Union had rational, socio-economic interests like any other nation.

And the USSR was in no regard like Nazi Germany. The USSR had a completely different socio-economic system, a different ethical code, and a different historical backround and culture.

Comparing the Soviets to the Nazis was a tool of American cold war propaganda (just like the Soviets compared the US to Nazi Germany).

The SU drowe a lot of money in supporting "liberation", when the USA also lost a lot of money there, but at least the US had sources of money, and their population had a high living standard. When in the SU population lived in bad conditions (yes, yes, I know about so super soviet callorites equal to american consumption ). I know how looked that in Poland, and living conditions in the Soviet Union were worse, really, really worse. Even in the richest european republics. Do you know what was the biggest economical succes of socialist economy in Poland? A development of rural areas. Why did it happen? Thanks to socialism? Partialy, yes, partliany no. Yes, because in a planed economy prices of agricultural products were just as anything else totally crazy and set by the state, so they were high and allowed peasants to live earn relativly good even from small plots of land, like 4 hectars, and having two or three cows, and adding to that some work in a real economy, they had even enough money to built brick/airbrick houses and barns. But it was against socialism, why? Because the commies here wanted to collectivize agriculture, but they failed and after 1956 the polish version of kolkhozes dissolved, yes independent peasants were salt in wounds for the Party still, and to the nearly very end, the Party declared the need of collectivization, but luckily they didn't had will to do it.

Yes, the USSR spent a lot of money on proxy wars in the third world. But not nearly as much as the US.

As someone once said 'Supporting a revolution is not nearly as difficult as putting it down'.

This is of course oversimplified, and the USSR was not allways the great freedom fighter, but they didnt engage in neo-collonialism', and funded freedon fighters accross the third world.

Actually I myself have multiple friends and colleagues from Poland, Russia, Romania, and I have family in the former DDR. No, of course this alone doesnt legitimize my points, but I have talked to those people a lot and I know how live in the communist bloc was. Im not just 'Some Soviet Fanboy from the US', like you said.

I also have read a lot about those topics, out of interest. No, the communist bloc wasnt all good.

But those points about faster growth, allmost full employment (the DDR had 0,2% employment, mostly alcoholics and mentally ill), no homelessnes, free education, free and good healthcare (except for the late 90s after Gorbatchevs wild mass privazisation), cheap necessities, cheap cultural activities, etc.

It was not all bad, actually the Soviets used their potential much better than the US.

Ok, now to Poland. Poland had massive growth in the 50s, during the industrialisation. Living standarts grew at a slower but steady rate. Then after Bierut's death, Gomulka took over. The focus shifted towards so called 'Goulash communism', which focused more on consumer goods and implemented some market reforms (economic growth slowed down a little after that, but still was higher than the western average). After Gomulka was deposed and Gierek took over, the course again changed. Poland took massive debts from the west, to import consumer goods (which among other things, led to the immense rise in meat consumption. The average pole consumed more meet than the average american. Oh, and if you want sources for anything, I can deliver). This focus on consumer goods imports, and not so much on economic growth, of course backfired and stare debts grew ro a point, where no more loans were given. Poland had to pay back, and the austerity course, together with bad harvests, caused the rise of the Solidarnosc trade union, which further hurt the national economy. The crisis peaked at a point, where state owned shops had a shortage of food and other necessities (the state shops, NOT the free markets, and the state stores mostly had shortages, because they still sold at ridiculously low prices. Rationing is bad, but better than risking that people wouldnt get the cheap stuff, and maybe couldnt pay the market prices). Riots became bad and there was a risk of civil war between Beton and Solidarnosc (at least according to some historians). In 1981, the Soviet backed military coup, led by Jaruzlski, which increased stabiliy somewhat, but couldnt end the crisis. In 1989, Jaruszelski stepped down, amd capitalism was restored, causing the economy to collapse completely . It recovered during the 90s.

The reality is that the Soviet Union didn't have anything to offer, except propaganda babling about bad imperialists. It is only for you if you believe in that. If in the Third World they wanted to be rich, they needed to work hard, have a good organization, instead of blaming all on imperialists. Be like asian tigers, not like India, which after the independence had a failled economical policy, which only changes in 1990, and this country started to grow.

The Soviets had a lot to offer. To name some examples, the Soviets exported oil, gas, heavy indutrial goods, and some special consumer goods to the west. But as its imports, the exports only accounted for 4% of their GNP.

And people in the third world work a LOOOOT harder and longer than people in the first world. This 'Oh those lazy children in India, making shoes under slave relations 12 hours a day' is just bullshit and ignorance (I dont mean you are ignorant, I dont know you, and I dont want to insult you. I just wanted to say that). They are poor, because they are kept poor, as this is profitable for large corporations (you know, neo-collonialism and stuff).


Ok, the good old 'But, but what about the Tigers?' argument. The Tigers grew that much because of massive western investment, to use the as anti-communist Bulwarks in key locations (Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Macau against the PRC ; Sinagpor against south east asian communism, etc.), and because they had a relatively small population. And also because it was more profitable to capitalism as a whole to de-stabilize asian communism, than to exploit those small nations.

So, the only option for the tiger model is, if your country is small, close to a communist superpower, of geopollitical importance, and if a new cold war between communism aand capitalism breaks out. Otherwise, no. India had a large economic growth, sometimes larger than china (and china sometimes reached an average of 10% during the cold war). After the cold war ended, massive investment flowed in. For a short time, the economy grew faster than before, but after that strongly decreased again (that happens, when investment flows in).


I could go on for much longer, but I am tired. If you have criticism or questions, or want any sources, ask me.

Oh and, this was in my opinion neccessary to understand this discussion properly. So it had to do with this threat.
 

Toraach

Banned
A very long post
Well, I see that despite your long elaborations you don't know much about the soviet economy. Just repeating typical cliches, about so fast economic growth. I wonder how it was measured, probably by steel production and sulphur mining. It isn't like that with their so fast economic growth could even outpaced the West, not with inherit flaws of their economy, this just shear stupidity. Talking about bad evil neocolonial corporations is a waste of time, yet another cliches on some important issues, which look slightly diffrent, but it isn't the modern politics here. Also you complaing about sactions that soviets wasn't able to sell their goods, and boy consumer goods. I'm sorry but a typical pro soviet myth. Sanctions were only on some technologies which could have been used in military, not for the rest, not for consumer goods, cars, refrigators, radios, carpets, apples, sugar, wheat, gold, oil, tables, chairs, safety razors, toilet paper. Especially in 70s there was a great willing in the West to trade with the Soviet Block, and also the Soviet Block was very happy to do it. Yet, from some reasons the Soviets and Friends failed to product any stuff which could be succesful in the western markerts (maybe there was some niche, but it isn't important). Yes, my dear friend, when in the civilized world, every few year there was something new, or at least new model, in the soviet empire they could produce the two stroke gas engine cars to 1983 (Syrena in Poland).

But the biggest fun is what you wrote about Poland. This shown for me that you don't know much. Well that with meat consumption is especially fun :D Also regarding of economic growth in 50s during Bierut. It clearly shows that you don't understand it at all. The six-year plan, was a soviet style plan of forced industrialization, when they built steelworks, and other heavy industry, with a total lack of regard to light industry and consumer goods. To be honest the living standard lowered during this plan, and in 1956 were anti-communist riots in Poznań caused by food problems and exploitation. Gomułka slighthly changed the economic course, which greatly helped the people and living standards rose. So you see, the economic "growth" during Bierut's time was caused by producing more steel, more coal, more tanks and guns, not by producing goods which people who are gradualy enriched could buy. It is like comparing China under Mao and in 90s. Under the great leap forwards there was also an economic growth, more steel, more coal, more tanks, but people didn't have anything from that. In modern China people live better thanks to growth. Also you didn't know about Gierek's economic model. He used those loans not to import foreign consumer goods, but to invest them into building new factories (this had some merits, as the post war demographic boom started to become adults and needed work), his idea was to buy licenses on western products thanks to those loans, and repaid them by using money obtained from selling those license built product in the West. He failed, noone wanted to buy obsolete products, which were in poor quality. Also except the harsh winter 78/79 there were no weather participation in their economic fall. Also there was no a widespread agricultural crisis in 80s, except maybe some small branches like poultry. Economic shortages started in middle 70s, in 1976 rationing of sugar started (in a country which at that time was full of sugar-beetroots fields and sugarbeetroot processing plants). Solidarity didn't cause an economic crisis, this is a typical postcommunist propaganda blaming difficulties on Solidarity. Jaruzelski didn't do a coup, because he had been already in power, he just used his resources, already helded by him to smash the oposition and to return to being a good soviet pet. The black market was a way to how people try to live, a natural thing that black markets appear when other means are insufficent. The socialist economy just could cope with producing and distributing enough goods to meat consumer needs, and any soviet super computers just could have not helped with that. The economic colapse in 89 wasn't that total. In some areas that was a colapse in other a start of a new age. But later things were varried, but that was a purely responsibility of the new goverments how they solved problems and what solutions they choose.

Maybe I didn't use a bad wording about hard working, but I mean a diffrent kind of work than hard manual labor. And I know how people could hard work in a primitive economical condition. My granparents lived in the countryside even before 2WW, and later too, I'm also from a country side, and I know how tyring can be work in agriculture. Still when India embraced an economic planing, they were riduculed for "hindu rate of growth", when they started to dismantle the license Raj, they started to growth, and now how rates similar to China.

The last thing. unemploement and communism. The full employment was not thanks to superiority of this economy, but to the politics, the party decided that there needed to be full employment and it was. This was "hidden unemployment". A task which could be done by two men, was done by five or four men. This thing also had a bad social aspect, people didn't respect work at all, there were not any work ethos, but drinking, stealing, a lack of reaspect for work, wagabounding were common occurences in state owned enterprises(the only thing which could stop it was terror, but after 1956 at least in Poland it wasn't enforced).
 
But even formally: this grandiose and deserved success increased the capitalization of the US by many trillions of dollars and included it in a very narrow list of "immortal states" that will be remembered as long as the human mind exists.

On the other hand, how relevant is it to anyone that Magellan was Portuguese or was funded by the Spanish crown?

For a while, the United States were in a very unusual and rare role -- they were in need to catch-up. Soviet computers and electronics (unique moment when it really was cutting the edge), Soviet missiles, Soviet revolutions in the third world, own and unresolved intra-American problems. The mental "recoil" shook the country (Kennedy, Kennedy again and Dr. King shootings, the events of 1968, Vietnam, American Independence Party etc). Willy-nilly, US had to move to direct action. The answer to Gagarin's flight and overall soviet propaganda could only be landing on the Moon.

I get that losing the moon race would be traumatic, but as great as the angst would be, America itself wasn't under threat, nor were any key American allies or interests. I just don't see how losing this race would give the soviets a real leg up or inflict real damage to the US.

the United States they had interests, which were logical

This is really incorrect. The United States, like the Soviet Union, was/is a revolutionary republic who thought/thinks the rest of the world would be better if only they adopted their system and saw the world through the lens of their ideals. As much as we can say that the Soviets really were Marxists, we can say that the Americans really were (and are) 18th Century liberals. One of the prime drivers that got the Cold War started was Stalin completely and utterly failing to understand this at the very time that the US was both extremely tired of the way other systems kept generating wars that kept sucking them into Europe and was feeling that they finally had the power to persuade the European idiots to adopt a better path.

Do you know what was the biggest economical succes of socialist economy in Poland? A development of rural areas. Why did it happen? Thanks to socialism? Partialy, yes, partliany no. Yes, because in a planed economy prices of agricultural products were just as anything else totally crazy and set by the state, so they were high and allowed peasants to live earn relativly good even from small plots of land, like 4 hectars, and having two or three cows, and adding to that some work in a real economy, they had even enough money to built brick/airbrick houses and barns. But it was against socialism, why? Because the commies here wanted to collectivize agriculture, but they failed and after 1956 the polish version of kolkhozes dissolved, yes independent peasants were salt in wounds for the Party still, and to the nearly very end, the Party declared the need of collectivization, but luckily they didn't had will to do it.

This is fascinating.

Also you didn't know about Gierek's economic model. He used those loans not to import foreign consumer goods, but to invest them into building new factories (this had some merits, as the post war demographic boom started to become adults and needed work), his idea was to buy licenses on western products thanks to those loans, and repaid them by using money obtained from selling those license built product in the West. He failed, noone wanted to buy obsolete products, which were in poor quality.

Well, part of the problem was poor timing - had Poland tried this a decade earlier when Western imports were rising, it may have worked. As it was, Poland tried this growth path at one of the worst times for it, when there just wasn't the demand from the west.

Be like asian tigers, not like India, which after the independence had a failled economical policy, which only changes in 1990, and this country started to grow.

If you look at the Asian tigers and India, the real differences are that all the tigers had effective land reform, where India... Well, they weren't effective. And they all dealt with the feudal-era class divisions more effectively than India did. India's land reform and caste problems came well before they got interested in copying aspects of the Soviet system. Equally, land reform in the Tiger economies came well before economic liberalization.

The Soviets had a lot to offer.

The Soviets were also in many cases the only power willing to counter the US.

Take for example the Cuban case - with the US feeling so threatened by Castro, Castro needed friends who didn't mind poking the eagle in the eye. So even though Castro didn't like the Soviets (and they didn't like him) the Soviets had a monopoly on the willingness/ability to counter the US.

fasquardon
 
To agitation:

That was the most important, and I think they were highly succesful in that regard.

Toraach, I will answer to your longer post later on (I dont have that much time now).

But I wanted to know what you meant by this. I mean, the communists of course had a lot of success in some western european countries (Like Italy, where the communist party had 30% of the vote in the 70s, and France where the party had 20% during this time, aswell). There a takeover doesnt seem that unlikely. In Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey, the communists had around 10%. Thats a lot less, but it seems to be a lot, still.
But what about West Germany or Britain for example, where the communists only had 0,3% of the votes?
Or in the US, the party only had 0,05%. Ok thats a special case, but still...

The western average in support for the pro-soviet-communist party, was 6,9% of the vote around 1970.

Of course movements can gain strengh very fast (think of the five stars movement in Italy. The party was founded in 2009 and gained around 30% in the last election). But how would this come about?
 
Last edited:
I don't see why a Soviet victory in the Cold War would automatically be associated with US collapse, or Europe turning all red and so on.

A successful Perestroika could have been the cornerstone of a Soviet victory - in the sense to be accepted by the West and not seen more as its mortal enemy.
 
Could the western New Left play a role in a Soviet Cold War Victory? Maybe, the Vietnam war is longer and more brutal, and the New Left gains more support, eventually toppling the western capitalist governments and installing socialist states (allthough more liberal than the USSR).

The New Left had a quite difficult relationship towards the USSR (and also a very diveese one, with anarchists and maoists having completely different criticisms).

On one hand, they supported the USSRs struggle against western imperialism and their aid to socialist North Vietnam and Cuba, which were role models for much of the New Left. On the other hand they condemned the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

So the New Left gets their revolutions (even if its only in western europe), and establishes liberal socialist states. Relations with the USSR would be ok for now (No Prague Spring crushing might help a lot), with the Soviets praising the New Left revolutions as the innevitable victory of socialism in the west (The Soviets belived, that the ever shorter cyclus of economic crisis would eventually bring capitalism down and win people over for socialism, and that they only had to survive until the time has come). Trade could flow between the New Left states and the Soviet bloc, and the western socialist states may even get an observer status in COMECON (And possibly full membership in the future). They could also have mutual defense pacts, if the US or another power, perceived a danger was still around.

But differences would remain. Even if the Soviets made some reforms and all those ties between both sides exist, the conservativism of the Brezhnev-USSR and the spontaneous, liberal-socialist ideology of the New Left wouldnt fit together. Maybe the Soviets could influenec those states enough to turn them into pupets somehow, but that would be hard and take long.

Socialism of some kind would become the leading ideology in the world. It likely wouldnt be as polarized than today in OTL.
 
I mean, the communists of course had a lot of success in some western european countries (Like Italy, where the communist party had 30% of the vote in the 70s, and France where the party had 20% during this time, aswell). There a takeover doesnt seem that unlikely.

In Eastern Europe both just before and just after the Communists had sole power, the pro-Communist section of the electorate was generally between 22-37%. So just because the Italian party could gain 30% support doesn't mean they can gain 51% support. Communism may, by its nature, only appeal to around 1/4 to 1/3 of any population. Plenty of people to support a revolution or a one party state, enough people even to make it an important party in a liberal democracy, but not enough people to flip a liberal democracy into Communism by the ballot box.

fasquardon
 
Well, I will stay with my thesis:

In times of crises, pollitical trends can change extremely fast.

In 1916, the Bolsheviks were a moderately popular party in russia, with their leadership being in exile. In 1917, they were in power and had most of the workers behind them.

In 1928, the Nazi Party had had 2,6% of the vote. Five years later they had absolute power over Germany.

In 1942, the Communist Party of Italy was illegal and members were in prison. In 1948, they allmost won the elections, if it was not for CIA meddling.

In the 50s, the red scare ran wild in the west and anything that was remotely considered leftist/socialist was repressed. And a decade later we had the western youth protesting for the new left by the millions, carrying banners of Lenin and Luxemburg (though their ideology was very utopian, and had serious differences with leninism).

1984, the CPSU had the highest support rate in its history. Six years later the USSR broke appart.

So if the west was hit by a major crisis during the cold war (most likely a recession, maybe on great depression levels) this could boost communist agitation to a point, where they win the majority of the populace for their cause in a short amount of time.

So a mirror end of the cold war (with US economic decline in the 80s, communist revolutions in western europe and Japan, the breakup of the US along regional lines, and the discrediting of of burgeoisie democracy as an ideology) is totally plausible and in no way ASB. Of course it wouldn't be an identical mirror, and a communist american analogue to the Russian Federation would likely play a larger role on the world stage, but it is plausible.

Remember, people in the 70s would also have said that the collapse of the socialist camp in a decade is ASB.

As Nelson Mandela said: "It allways seems impossible untill it's done".
 
Last edited:
Top