How could the USSR win the Cold War?

[Kubra]

Aggressive foreign policy right out of the ww2 gate might have done it, but the place was pretty beat up, not much room to maneuver. They just didn't have the resources to really back their powerful players in the west through the immediate election years.
In any case, what often comes up is that USSR probably shouldn't have been so gung ho about fighting the cold war in the first place: stockpiling nukes is economic waste for a country/economic bloc with anemic economies as is.
And that's another thing: the USSR never had the economic power or political acumen as their western counterparts. Its history is one mostly of blundering though and somehow not fucking everything up (right away).

[The New California Republic]

Gorbachev constantly reiterates in his book Perestroika that he understands that Perestroika is a process, that it will not emerge fully-formed, and that it would take at least 15 years of constant tweaking and experimentation to actually make a significant difference. The USSR died before that could happen.

In which he is trying to defend his failures.
Sure reforms would take time.

Strange, there must have been some kind of time warp, considering that he wrote the book in the very early stages of Perestroika before the results were known...

[Costa Fierro]

Going all out in spreading communism right after WW2 could have been a winner, supporting commies in Greece, China, Korea and Western Europe (particularly France and Italy). Even then, its a long shot since the USSR lacked atomic bombs, was exhausted industrially and manpower-wise.

If memory serves me correctly, they were, at least in Greece, China, and Korea.

My opinion on this would be as short as it was about Austria-Hungary: not being communist, or in this case, not spending so much money on weapons programs.

[Costa Fierro]

USSR didn't need to "win" the Cold War - just last long enough until the Asian powers turned the World from a Bipolar World into a Multipolar World. And then it'd be a whole new ballgame.

The most interesting timeline, that's for sure.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

If memory serves me correctly, they were, at least in Greece, China, and Korea.

My opinion on this would be as short as it was about Austria-Hungary: not being communist, or in this case, not spending so much money on weapons programs.

The only real example were they went all out is China, they didn't try intervene to help North Korea unite the Peninsula, and they failed to back the Greeks because they made a deal with Churchill, dividing Europe into spheres of interest.

[Costa Fierro]

If memory serves me correctly, they were, at least in Greece, China, and Korea.

My opinion on this would be as short as it was about Austria-Hungary: not being communist, or in this case, not spending so much money on weapons programs.

The only real example were they went all out is China, they didn't try intervene to help North Korea unite the Peninsula, and they failed to back the Greeks because they made a deal with Churchill, dividing Europe into spheres of interest.

They had pilots flying MiG-15's that were painted in North Korean colours, and it was assumed that the North Koreans could do it themselves. They very nearly did.

[Confederate States of German America]

How could the Soviet Union Win the Cold War?

My answer:
The USSR is at it's peak during the Stalin and Khruschev era, it is infact stronger
than the west at the time. Problem is that the USSR did not have an atomic bomb available unlike the west which had multiple atomic bombs.
But AMerican children were big in Communism and socialism back then so the idea for the USSR to influence the United States to convert into a communist country and civil war could be necessary for that transition. AFter the USA turns communist it could start working with the USSR and take on NATO in Europe and japan in the pacific.

Literally none of this is true.

[Confederate States of German America]

There was no way the USSR could win the Cold War.

[The New California Republic]

How could the Soviet Union Win the Cold War?

My answer:
The USSR is at it's peak during the Stalin and Khruschev era, it is infact stronger
than the west at the time. Problem is that the USSR did not have an atomic bomb available unlike the west which had multiple atomic bombs.
But AMerican children were big in Communism and socialism back then so the idea for the USSR to influence the United States to convert into a communist country and civil war could be necessary for that transition. AFter the USA turns communist it could start working with the USSR and take on NATO in Europe and japan in the pacific.

Literally none of this is true.

It falls apart in the first instance because they assume that the USSR collapsed as a result of a military defeat, rather than an economic one.

[Kubra]

Oh actually come to think of it if Khrushchev had been more stalin-friendly he wouldn't have alienated the chinese.
I mean, he'd alienate everyone else, but hey: you got the chinese, so fuck em.

[Confederate States of German America]

Oh actually come to think of it if Khrushchev had been more stalin-friendly he wouldn't have alienated the chinese.
I mean, he'd alienate everyone else, but hey: you got the chinese, so fuck em.

Chinese alienation already had its roots under Stalin, the split just became evident under Khrushchev.

[Free Earthian Yap]

Thats an easy question and no need to think deeply about it,Soviets reached to Berlin before the Allies,they captured many German intellectuals and instead of exterminating every nazi doctor,scientist or engineer, they should have employ them just like US did.

[The New California Republic]

Thats an easy question and no need to think deeply about it,Soviets reached to Berlin before the Allies,they captured many German intellectuals and instead of exterminating every nazi doctor,scientist or engineer, they should have employ them just like US did.

You are talking nonsense. The USSR did make use of captured Nazi scientists and technical teams. All the Nazi tech that they found in their areas of occupation got shipped off to the USSR. The captured V2 technology and scientists in particular were instrumental in the early Soviet rocket programme.

[Hrstrovokia]

You could say avoid Stalin. On one hand, he single handedly destroys any seeds of democratic tradition and genuine Socialism in the USSR, when both are weak anyway from the Civil war years (did Russia ever have a chance at a democratic tradition? jumped from Tsars to authoritarian Dictatorship of the People). On the other hand, he drags the USSR into the modern era with the five-year plans, so that in 1941 there is a chance to beat the Nazi's (and yet he fairly sabotages them along the way and involves the USSR in some nefarious deeds like invasion of Poland, Baltic States, Finland etc). You go from still being practical Serfs in the 1910s to putting a man in Space in the 1960s (but also couldn't have someone done this without killing millions of people in the process?).

It's been said a country as vast and as varied as Russia could not survive if it was a democracy, maybe there is some truth to this, but I believe the only way to have won the Cold War was for the USSR to be a genuine alternative to Capitalism by being a genuine Socialist country.

[Mystic Warriors]

Switch to capitalism and true democracy.

[Novus America]

In which he is trying to defend his failures.
Sure reforms would take time.

Strange, there must have been some kind of time warp, considering that he wrote the book in the very early stages of Perestroika before the results were known...

Okay, fair enough.
Still the rest stands.

He was trying to reinvent the wheel, at a time we already had wheels.
And he made the wheel all wrong.
Again yes given enough time the earlier mistakes could be fixed (but also the economic damage his idiocy caused shortened the time available too, Perestroika made the USSR collapse faster) but it is better to not make the mistakes in the first place.

Sure he had intentions of creating a new better socialism instead of introducing capitalism but that was a problem, his reforms were very much ideological over pragmatic.

Gorbachev was simply incompetent.
He did not understand economics and thus was entirely unsuited to be an economic reformer.

The USSR absolutely needed economic reforms, and absolutely needed to start them earlier.

I agree on both those points.

But Gorbachev was never the man for the job because he simply had no understanding of economics.

[Novus America]

Thats an easy question and no need to think deeply about it,Soviets reached to Berlin before the Allies,they captured many German intellectuals and instead of exterminating every nazi doctor,scientist or engineer, they should have employ them just like US did.

Umm the Soviets did make use of German intellectuals like the US did..,
Obviously this did not save the Soviets.

Nazi scientists did not have magical powers, although they did help with Soviet rocket, jet aircraft and ballistic missile programs. But that did not fix the fundamental flaws in the Soviet system.

[Novus America]

Oh actually come to think of it if Khrushchev had been more stalin-friendly he wouldn't have alienated the chinese.
I mean, he'd alienate everyone else, but hey: you got the chinese, so fuck em.

The Chinese were not a great help at the time.

And the problem was Mao’s delusions more than Khrushchev.
Mao believed he should be the rightful ruler of the Marxist world after Stalin, he wanted subservience from the USSR which of course the USSR would not give.

But the problems started before that. While ideology played a role in the conflict, there were also more simple causes such as territorial disputes.

[Nea Byzantia]

Groom a narcissistic buffoon with a wide authoritarian streak, the morals of a toddler and the patience and intellectual curiosity of a third grade boy to run for US President. Collect kompromat involving his shady business dealings, money laundering and, erm, unusual personal proclivities. Place cutouts in his campaign. Hack the opposing party's computers and release the most damaging information through another cutout. Funnel money to the campaign and other party leaders through national organizations like the NRA; collect kompromat on them as well. Target disinformation to key likely voters in key districts, using polling information passed from the campaign. Hack key state election systems. Set up back channels of communications through the candidate's family and foreign policy advisors. So, pretty much what happened.

You know I wondered when this would come up.

[Nea Byzantia]

You could say avoid Stalin. On one hand, he single handedly destroys any seeds of democratic tradition and genuine Socialism in the USSR, when both are weak anyway from the Civil war years (did Russia ever have a chance at a democratic tradition? jumped from Tsars to authoritarian Dictatorship of the People). On the other hand, he drags the USSR into the modern era with the five-year plans, so that in 1941 there is a chance to beat the Nazi's (and yet he fairly sabotages them along the way and involves the USSR in some nefarious deeds like invasion of Poland, Baltic States, Finland etc). You go from still being practical Serfs in the 1910s to putting a man in Space in the 1960s (but also couldn't have someone done this without killing millions of people in the process?).

It's been said a country as vast and as varied as Russia could not survive if it was a democracy, maybe there is some truth to this, but I believe the only way to have won the Cold War was for the USSR to be a genuine alternative to Capitalism by being a genuine Socialist country.

I strongly disagree, the Soviet Union didn't begin declining until after Stalin's death in 1953. The main problem is that he packed the Presidium with Yes-Men and Empty Suits, and purged any capable leaders who could've potentially posed a threat to his iron grasp on power. In the short-run it maximized his hold on power, but in the long-term, it left the Soviet Union devoid of any strong and capable leadership that would've been necessary for the Nation's success against the United States.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, Russia is geopolitically on a defensive footing (see below).

Going all out in spreading communism right after WW2 could have been a winner, supporting commies in Greece, China, Korea and Western Europe (particularly France and Italy). Even then, its a long shot since the USSR lacked atomic bombs, was exhausted industrially and manpower-wise.

Another alternative is the typical Cold War gone Hot in the 80's. The USSR wasn't doing all that well, but military-wise it was much stronger than Europe. Still, that'd probably devolve into nuclear war or stalemate.

The Soviet Union was essentially on the defensive throughout the Cold War; as in it was trying to keep its head above water, more than anything else. This probably had a lot to do with the fact that the Soviet Government was probably just as worried about maintaining its power in its own country as it was projecting power abroad. But Russia has a defensive geopolitical strategy and outlook by nature; so its difficult to see how that might've been different. It was the case in the Tsarist era, it was so in the Soviet Union, and its still the case today; which is why I cringe whenever I hear people say "Russia wants to take over the World". Its just laughable, and shows how little the speaker knows about Russia.

Arguably the Soviet Union wasn't going to take over the World either. Why do you think Stalin emphasized "Socialism-In-One-Country" as his policy? That was a pragmatic move, taking into account Russia's geopolitical position and strengths. Russia has always been at its best on the defensive; and the failed Soviet War in Afghanistan (1979 - 1989) when compared with other more successful military ventures, bears this out.

On an ideological level, the decision by the Soviet authorities (particularly Lenin and Stalin) to crack down on the Orthodox Church; the dominant religion of the Russian People, wasn't wise either; as it eventually alienated the Soviet regime from its people. Essentially, the Soviet regime lit a ticking time-bomb under its own regime by pursuing this policy. Chasing the Church into the catacombs only made it stronger.

I'm not even going to touch on the economics as that horse has already been beaten to death.

[Kubra]

Oh actually come to think of it if Khrushchev had been more stalin-friendly he wouldn't have alienated the chinese.
I mean, he'd alienate everyone else, but hey: you got the chinese, so fuck em.

Chinese alienation already had its roots under Stalin, the split just became evident under Khrushchev.

Nah Mao took a no hard feelings approach to the bits where stalin pretty much fucked with him. It's funny, because Khrushchev was willing to subsidise a lot of chinese growth, but after the secret speech Mao decided he wasn't having it, kicks out the soviet technical support staff and the hilarity of the great leap forward ensues.

[Confederate States of German America]

Chinese alienation already had its roots under Stalin, the split just became evident under Khrushchev.

Nah Mao took a no hard feelings approach to the bits where stalin pretty much fucked with him. It's funny, because Khrushchev was willing to subsidise a lot of chinese growth, but after the secret speech Mao decided he wasn't having it, kicks out the soviet technical support staff and the hilarity of the great leap forward ensues.

No, Stalin repeatedly wrote off the CCP in favor of working with the KMT and initially after the end of WWII was very ambivalent about whether to support Mao or maintain the support for the KMT. The roots of this were in Soviet Orthodoxy; Moscow held revolution could only come from the workers (Industrial proletariat), Maoism was a rejection of that in that it was revolution by peasants. This made Stalin very uncomfortable and the snub that stood out the most to Mao, or at least started the process, was at how Stalin kept him at arms length when he (Mao) visited Moscow. Regardless of who succeeded Stalin, the Sino-Soviet break was inevitable.

[Kubra]

Nah Mao took a no hard feelings approach to the bits where stalin pretty much fucked with him. It's funny, because Khrushchev was willing to subsidise a lot of chinese growth, but after the secret speech Mao decided he wasn't having it, kicks out the soviet technical support staff and the hilarity of the great leap forward ensues.

No, Stalin repeatedly wrote off the CCP in favor of working with the KMT and initially after the end of WWII was very ambivalent about whether to support Mao or maintain the support for the KMT. The roots of this were in Soviet Orthodoxy; Moscow held revolution could only come from the workers (Industrial proletariat), Maoism was a rejection of that in that it was revolution by peasants. This made Stalin very uncomfortable and the snub that stood out the most to Mao, or at least started the process, was at how Stalin kept him at arms length when he (Mao) visited Moscow. Regardless of who succeeded Stalin, the Sino-Soviet break was inevitable.

>stalin repeateadly wrote off the CCP in favor of working with the KMT
Precisely, that's what makes it so weird. Stalin did not reciprocate Mao's feelings in the slightest, but he still broke with Krushchev over him being insufficiently stalin-esque. You can find plenty of examples of Mao praising Stalin, but *never* Khrushchev, despite the latter actually sending a great deal of material support for the fledgling PRC and signing considerable trade agreements in the 2 interim years.
I mean sure the split was gonna happen but form of such is another story. Would a more sufficiently stalin-esque general secretary meant the chinese would be the ones hawking destalinisation, for example?

[Costa Fierro]

Would a more sufficiently stalin-esque general secretary meant the chinese would be the ones hawking destalinisation, for example?

Probably not until Mao dies.

[Confederate States of German America]

No, Stalin repeatedly wrote off the CCP in favor of working with the KMT and initially after the end of WWII was very ambivalent about whether to support Mao or maintain the support for the KMT. The roots of this were in Soviet Orthodoxy; Moscow held revolution could only come from the workers (Industrial proletariat), Maoism was a rejection of that in that it was revolution by peasants. This made Stalin very uncomfortable and the snub that stood out the most to Mao, or at least started the process, was at how Stalin kept him at arms length when he (Mao) visited Moscow. Regardless of who succeeded Stalin, the Sino-Soviet break was inevitable.

>stalin repeateadly wrote off the CCP in favor of working with the KMT
Precisely, that's what makes it so weird. Stalin did not reciprocate Mao's feelings in the slightest, but he still broke with Krushchev over him being insufficiently stalin-esque. You can find plenty of examples of Mao praising Stalin, but *never* Khrushchev, despite the latter actually sending a great deal of material support for the fledgling PRC and signing considerable trade agreements in the 2 interim years.
I mean sure the split was gonna happen but form of such is another story. Would a more sufficiently stalin-esque general secretary meant the chinese would be the ones hawking destalinisation, for example?

It was more an excuse than anything based in reality. One chief difference, and was more Chinese willful ignorance than rooted in reality, was that Mao was irritated by Khrushchev being unwilling to aggressively challenge the West. Mao used the excused of Stalin supporting the Korean War and other movements, despite Stalin having shied away from open conflict with the West repeatedly, to attack Khruschev despite said CCCP leader ultimately doing the Cuban Missile Crisis and other such events. Beijing, unlike Moscow, didn't grasp the nuclear balance of power until the 1960s.