What if the USSR wins the Cold War?

[ParkCungHee]

I think Dachs would have enough sense to just troll that topic until it got locked.

 

[r16]

discourse without context is meaningless and ı keep forgetting not everybody is priviliged ; to idiocy in my humble case .

let's try it this way .

the case for the 1960s is Soviets lack spine , as proven their backing off in the Cuban missile crisis . America considers it a victory . Furthermore America thinks the economy is their strongest point and Soviets can only keep up , if they were in a crisis they would crack . That is why there will be a merciless attrition campaign in Vietnam . You may as well forget the communist take over attempts of Saigon ; that Moscow and Beijing are at loggerheads means Hanoi can develop its infrastructure etc , North wants peace . Means they don't have a spine just like their masters . This is rule number whatever when dealing with Americans : if you attack them you are guilty . If you don't attack them you are still guilty . The largest steel works in SEA must be bombed because its products can be used in building bridging material for penetration of the Free World and it is of course against big biz-niz to compete by building a bigger steelworks in Free World part of SEA . Bombs away !!!!

summary so far : the Vietnam War was a planned attritional campaign to disrupt economical development of the Soviet Bloc en masse . Superior American arms would keep destroy whatever power Hanoi held , the memory of Dien Bien Phu would be at risk forcing Soviets rush replacements to save the Liberation movements . In case they didn't care for a client state . Am not expecting to make any impact soon . But maybe one day in our remaining lifespans we will see an end to American military whining about how their politicians did not understand and supported 'em in Nam. It is Pentagon's own military failure ; disregarding intel about Russian economics and kinda hubris to overemphasise their own potential . American military was so powerful , believe me in this , they agreed to tie their one hand behind so that Hanoi would last long enough until the first Russian ships brought in the replacement materiel . Am known to be dismissive of American Power . Yeah , so what , we field starships ...

lyndon Johnson saw ways of the American warmaking , in that one single trip he took or didn't take against the Japanese . If US military had not promised him victory in the McNamara way , he would have said " NO ! " to his whizz kids .

for a what-if scenario that discusses USSR winning the Cold War , April 1965 is a good start . For had they known what it was , collectively , American politicians and the military would have escalated the conflict . Because they supposed themselves to be so ahead in tech , they were ready to kill millions to bring down the Russian bear and would not shed a tear . They had swamped the Germans by outproducing them in the factory and this time it would be the turn of the Commies . Technological parity on the other hand meant Red Hordes would win and this would immediately imply the Reds had be scared . Before gaining any extra advantage . Better dead than Red is corny enough to be a state strategy .

in 3 years time yet another exchange resulted in Americans sorta ending the Rolling Thunder , the difference was Americans now doubted their ability to walk on the water . Yeah yeah they won in 1972 , we all know that , don't we ?

 

[aronnax]

A little thing, I'll like to add. The Cuban Missile crisis wasn't a backing down by the Soviet Union to America in their staring contest. It was a compromise. The U.S.S.R withdrew their nukes from Cuba and America did the same with their nukes in Turkey. In other words, Soviets lack spine=/= not true.

 

[Tee Kay]

A little thing, I'll like to add. The Cuban Missile crisis wasn't a backing down by the Soviet Union to America in their staring contest. It was a compromise. The U.S.S.R withdrew their nukes from Cuba and America did the same with their nukes in Turkey. In other words, Soviets lack spine=/= not true.

... but it certainly seemed like the Soviets were the losing side. The Americans withdrew their missiles in Turkey but only secretly, whereas the Soviets very publicly turned their ships around. Khrushchev's backstabbing colleagues thought that way too.

 

[aronnax]

... but it certainly seemed like the Soviets were the losing side. The Americans withdrew their missiles in Turkey but only secretly, whereas the Soviets very publicly turned their ships around. Khrushchev's backstabbing colleagues thought that way too.

Ah well true. But I suppose it's alot harder to quietly withdraw ships than it is to remove missiles. I wouldn't say the Soviets lost the "battle" of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It was a win for both U.S.S.R and U.S.A because they got the immediate threat of nuclear missiles near their borders removed. It was a propaganda, public relations victory for the USA though.

 

[Tee Kay]

It was a win for both U.S.S.R and U.S.A because they got the immediate threat of nuclear missiles near their borders removed. It was a propaganda, public relations victory for the USA though.

American missiles were still based in Western Europe; really, not too far away from Leningrad or Kiev. Cuba, on the other hand, was really the only place the Soviets could have based their weapons near American soil (Bering Straits excepted).

 

[aronnax]

American missiles were still based in Western Europe; really, not too far away from Leningrad or Kiev. Cuba, on the other hand, was really the only place the Soviets could have based their weapons near American soil (Bering Straits excepted).

Interestingly enough, the next American Nuclear Silo in Europe that was equipped with the Jupiter Missile (2100km range) that was removed from Turkey was in Italy. And while the Turkish bases could have struck the Industrial heartland of the southern Federal District of modern day Russia and was within range of Moscow, the Italian base in Bari was not close enough to reach Moscow or much of Modern day Russia. (yay google earth)

But I'll grant you that the Jupiter missiles in Italy could have well struck Belarus and Ukraine. The bases in West Germany could have reached deep into Russia but I don't think they were fit for the Jupiter missiles or any other mid or long-range missiles. The American Army never equipped those bases with the Jupiter Missiles. Strange ain't it?

 

[r16]

ı deal mostly in perceptions and the perception was Russians had backed down . If doesn't really have to be related to actual facts . Something else to remember is US promised a NATO Polaris force as a replacement for the missiles and that didn't happen too . Nuke based defence was so out that NATO began discussing conventional warfare again . Considering US was quite ready to dump friends when faced with what Washington was ready to mete out .

the point for the Americans is they thought they had stared the Commies down .

 

[Tee Kay]

But I'll grant you that the Jupiter missiles in Italy could have well struck Belarus and Ukraine. The bases in West Germany could have reached deep into Russia but I don't think they were fit for the Jupiter missiles or any other mid or long-range missiles. The American Army never equipped those bases with the Jupiter Missiles. Strange ain't it?

Yeah, you're right, the Americans didn't seem to have based mid- or long-range missiles in Germany. Turns out the nuclear weapons based in Germany were to be delivered by aircrafts.

 

[Yeekim]

Yellowstone eruption in 1980. might have won the Cold War for Soviets.

A random tidbit for someone above mentioning "Communist victory": a guy I know (born in 1940-s; lived his entire life until 1991 in ESSR) once said to me the first time he really saw a genuine Communist believer was when he managed a brief visit to Finland in early 1980-s.

 

[Caseyboy97]

Did you know that 10% of Americans believe that the USSR is an existing state?

 

[Leoreth]

I've seen Americans place Iraq next to the Czech Republic. From then on, everything was possible.

 

[Lord Baal]

I've seen Americans place Iraq next to the Czech Republic. From then on, everything was possible.

I've seen Fox News place Egypt in Iraq. So yeah, I can believe any of this.

 

[r16]

why , let's keep on harping on friendly fire incidents , those blue on blues . As they would have an impact on this larger April 65 war .

now a bonafide American heavyweight , Col Robin Olds was taken to be one of the best pilots of his day and the Wikipedia article shows he has a fanbase , much is made about his opposition to usual practises where one must follow the rule of the gang even if it is inefficient or hazardous . This missile AIM-4 Falcon was such an inefficiency in combat it took so long to operate and since its coolant capacity on non-interceptors was limited it would quickly become useless in a dogfight , becoming dead weight on the pylon . But it was a USAF project and rule of the gang said it would be on the first real USAF Phantom type , the F-4D . It is an aviation legend that Olds had them removed from the planes of his unit in Vietnam but does Wikipedia mention that ? No , because then they would also have to mention that Olds' unit was not supposed to have the missiles in the first place because he "stole" the Falcon armed planes from the unit that was to take them . Ah yes the friendless hero .

moving on he really shone as a unit commander and knocked out 4 Vietnamese jets but the 5th and acehood eluded him . Again according to Wikipedia US Goverment was expecting him to score and he would be removed from command for publicity tours . So that is why he avoided shooting down another enemy plane - at least on 10 occasions- and kept his unit in top efficiency . Dereliction of duty ? Why he didn't just fly , get 'em and push his wingmen forward to get the credit ? For his wingmen were also on the rise and in one occasion in May 67 when he took his 4 plane division home instead of engaging 4 enemy jets - seemingly expectin' 'em- , of the pilots in the American Phantoms 3 would become generals . Or maybe not , couldn't find the book to check . It is also an aviation legend that he was removed from his command earlier than the rotation time but one sees no explanation why .

moving on he ends up , probably , commander of the USAF Academy . Probably because ı am not familiar with those titles and all . Anyhow he is making a speech to the cadets and of course there has to be the regular flyover . Strangely the type is the F-105 -famous mainly because half the production ended up shot down in Vietnam - and they are flown by clowns . Not noticing they are too fast until its too late many in the formation pop out their speed brakes and it seems one goes into a climb , making the the pass look like the missing man formation , the kind of flight US flying services do at the funerals of their fallen comrades ... But at least one 105 goes supersonic overhead and breaks every single window of the USAF Academy in Colorado . And Wikipedia says it was Olds' drinking that stopped him from further rise .

 

[amadeus]

I'm just going to outline a scenario and what I think would be a "possible" victory (as in, the least impossible?) for the Soviet Union.

1962: Khrushchev calls Kennedy's bluff in the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy, fearful of a full nuclear exchange between the U.S. and USSR backs down. The victory gives Khrushchev enough political capital to replace his opponents and continue enacting market reforms while keeping a tight rein politically.

1963: Kennedy's administration attempts to intervene in South Vietnam but this, following the previous failures in Cuba, is met with stiff opposition with many in his own party. Despite their opposition, Kennedy secures a rare victory and manages to entangle the U.S. in Southeast Asia. Kennedy's popularity is further bolstered after he narrowly escapes death when Texas governor John Connolly is assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

1964: Following the Cuban missile crisis, Goldwater's glib comments about nuclear war with the Soviet Union cause unease amongst in the Republican ranks and many defect to Kennedy, securing him a second term in office. By this time, the Soviet Union has established trade offices in Egypt, Iraq and Mexico. Khrushchev's reforms continue, privatizing some firms and removing bureaucratic bottlenecks in others. Most Soviets, at least in the European part of the country, are optimistic and Soviet GNP increases steadily.

---

Comments so far? I wanted to do the whole thing in one sitting but I'm wiki'ing so many things for historical accuracy and just bouncing ideas in my head, so it's taking a lot longer than I thought.

 

[Lord Baal]

Not a bad attempt, but Kruschev, while no Stalin, certainly wouldn't have privatised anything. He was still a Communist, after all.

 

[Cutlass]

By the time Kruschev came to power, I doubt there was anything the USSR could do to make its economy competitive with the US economy unless the US economy crashed and burned badly.

 

[Ajidica]

By the time Kruschev came to power, I doubt there was anything the USSR could do to make its economy competitive with the US economy unless the US economy crashed and burned badly.

Based on what I read from Robert Service, the USSR wasn't that far down the crapper with Kruschev. Had Kruschev not lost political support with the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was concievable he could have improved the economy of the USSR. It was more the stagnation of Brezhnev that killed the USSR along with far too much defense spending for very little gain.

 

[Cutlass]

Based on what I read from Robert Service, the USSR wasn't that far down the crapper with Kruschev. Had Kruschev not lost political support with the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was concievable he could have improved the economy of the USSR. It was more the stagnation of Brezhnev that killed the USSR along with far too much defense spending for very little gain.

But "could have improved" and "could have so far exceeded US economic growth as to become dominant" are 2 very, very, different things. The US came out of WWII with a vast economic advantage. The USSR came out of WWII slightly not as crushed as other competing nations. Then the USSR went from and overwhelmingly agricultural economy to a mostly industrialized economy. That gave them a lot of catching up with the West. And it is fair to say that the mistakes they made limited how far that catching up could go. So reducing the mistakes leaves them where? Still playing catch up, but doing some measure of a better job at it.

That's a scenario for the Cold War lasting longer, not for the USSR winning it. Imagine their economy, instead of stalled by the 70s, growing at comparable rates to the US. They may be able to keep doing what they are doing. But that does not cause the US to falter. And so no "win" on their part.

 

[amadeus]

Not a bad attempt, but Kruschev, while no Stalin, certainly wouldn't have privatised anything. He was still a Communist, after all.

So was Lenin, but even Lenin produced the NEP. Remember that Kosygin, close to Khrushchev, tried to implement some capitalistic reforms. These didn't include a transition to privatization, but Khrushchev himself encouraged more private plot farming and it isn't unfathomable to imagine some degree of liberalization provided the right conditions.

Besides, the point is to provide a somewhat feasible route for the USSR to win. If they don't reform their economy, they're doomed to fail.

By the time Kruschev came to power, I doubt there was anything the USSR could do to make its economy competitive with the US economy unless the US economy crashed and burned badly.

Well, GDP averaged an annualized 5.5% growth during Khrushchev's reign. The system was still full of problems, but the point of this alternate universe is that the USSR is able to by and large fix many of them so far as they could have been fixed.

That's a scenario for the Cold War lasting longer, not for the USSR winning it. Imagine their economy, instead of stalled by the 70s, growing at comparable rates to the US. They may be able to keep doing what they are doing. But that does not cause the US to falter. And so no "win" on their part.

Story isn't over yet. >.>