You're leader of the USSR, how do you win the Cold War?

[Disposable Hero]

I thought this would be interesting and as its 20+ years since the fall of the Soviet Union it can be approached with a little historical distance.

The scenario, its 1953 and after having gotten the Cold War between East and West off to a suitably confrontational start The Great Leader Joseph Stalin has bought (sorry shared equally in the common wealth of) the Great Collective Farm in the sky.

By Power of Plot you have negotiated the subsequent power struggle and stepped into his mighty shoes as uncontested leader of the Soviet Union.

The question is, from this position how do you go about preventing what Putin is on record as describing as, “The greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” (referring to the fall of the Soviet Union).

Your goal is to maintain the USSR while increasing its power and influence as much as possible at the expense of the West. (although genuine efforts at maintaining peaceful coexistence may be the way to go)

I have my own ideas on the subject but I'd be interested on reading other peoples opinions first.

So, what are your orders General Secretary? *salutes*

*Assume that your plans and directions will be accepted and carried out by your subordinates and that, at least initially, you have no concerns regarding being toppled from power, also you can make long term plans with the assumption that you will be able to follow them through

*You can operate from the position that you have knowledge of the future or not, whatever you find more interesting, but of course as soon as you start setting things on a different course future history will quickly diverge from what you know

*leaving your own politics and opinions aside, I think we can all agree that the USSR was A Bad Thing, but just pretend for the sake of the scenario that your a committed Communist and true believer

btw there was a fun game in the early 90's with this same basic scenario, I recall playing it until it advanced to the year 2017 (or thereabouts) and the game designers had it end by a massive asteroid strike flattening the country!

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Abandon most attempts to use overt military force.
Reduce the size of the military.
Change the posture to a well-designed defensive one.
Concentrate on schools for subversives & revolutionaries
Sow dissent.
Subversion is key
If you are going to use the military, consider invading Iran in the 1950s. Seize a warm-water port & oil besides.

[Trinopus]

The above, but, especially, "subversion is key."

Mao took over China, and Pol Pot took over Cambodia, by giving the people what they thought they wanted. They instituted "people's courts" that settled criminal and civil cases, quickly. Bang, right there on the spot!

"This man raped my daughter!" This man is put against a wall and shot. The people cheer.

Due process? Well, that just slows things down. The communists gave instant gratification, and the people lapped it up.

(Of course, it really sucks if you happen to be "this man.")

Russian Communism put a slightly more human face on things, and tried to engage in high-tech, space-age endeavors. They never quite learned the key lessons from Lysenko, however. So, I would add to this recipe: "To the degree possible without losing control, engage the people's higher aspirations. Reward the arts, sciences, and crafts." Mere bread and circuses are good, but bread, circuses, and college educations are better.

But that's damned dangerous, as it creates a "thinking class," which, in the end, may be the undoing of the system.

[DMark]

That is hard to answer.
Having lived in Berlin when the Wall was up, and having spent a lot of time in East Berlin and making friends there, the people loathed the regime and all that it stood for.
The biggest army, the best weapons and smartest military strategists in the world cannot compete with a fully-pissed-off and disgruntled populace of people who hate you. It is quite amazing to see teenagers to grandmothers cursing their leaders under their breath and doing whatever they can to fuck things up in small ways. The lack of freedom tends to create a folk who do not have your back.

So, I don't want to be a spoilsport, but short of making life a LOT better for the general population, the eventual demise of the East Bloc was writing on the Wall, so to speak. I don't think anyone predicted it would happen quite as fast and furious as it did, but it was really only a matter of time until things started to collapse. It certainly would have happened by now with texting, twitter, internet and other social media; it would have been quite the bloody, loud uprising and spread quickly throughout the entire Eastern Bloc.

Maybe, just maybe:
1. Let your people travel anywhere in the world they want (and hope they return home).
2. Open up your doors to goods and services from the West.
3. Start making nice to other third world countries and really help them and get them on your side. (This was done, but mostly militaristic help and not so much for the populace in such countries as North Vietnam, Cuba, etc.)
4. Get some good PR for your brand of socialism.
5. Be patient.

Still, the above more likely would have created the blend the USSR didn't want, and once people taste certain freedoms, it is hard to put a lid back on it.

I guess the moral of the story is totalitarian regimes have an uphill battle to keep their people in line...at some point - maybe not today or tomorrow - but given any opportunity, the masses will turn on you with a vengeance.

[TriPolar]

1. Embrace capitalism
2. Enjoy victory

[DMark]

1. Embrace capitalism
2. Enjoy victory

Yeah - that is what I tried to say in 40,000 words above.
I should hire you as my personal editor!

[TriPolar]

Yeah - that is what I tried to say in 40,000 words above.
I should hire you as my personal editor!

I just recalled a week or so ago on Bill Maher he had some former (current?) bigwig from GM who spoke about meeting the Chinese Premier and asking him if China still believed in Communism in light of their recent spate of capitalistic activity. The response: "We will do what works, and call it Socialism"

[Little Nemo]

Do what Deng Xiaoping did in China. Maintain political control and crush any dissent. But allow some economic freedom.

[Boyo Jim]

Commu-Tourism.

Similar to eco-tourism except we go to see communists in their natural state.

[Oakminster]

Assassinate Ronald Reagan by 1976, and ensure Jimmy Carter is re-elected in 1980.

[The Man With The Golden Gun]

Either press the button myself or make "In Soviet Russia" jokes until my top generals do it for me.

[TriPolar]

Assassinate Ronald Reagan by 1976, and ensure Jimmy Carter is re-elected in 1980.

In 1980 Carter kicked the legs out of the Soviet Empire. So these things would have had no effect.

[Oakminster]

In 1980 Carter kicked the legs out of the Soviet Empire. So these things would have had no effect.

:confused:

How do you figure that? The Olympic boycott?

[TriPolar]

:confused:

How do you figure that? The Olympic boycott?

Yes. According our own intelligence following the fall of the Soviet Unio, and their own intelligence uncovered after the collapse, the boycott of the 1980 Olympics bankrupted the Soviet Union. They would have collapsed by the end of 1982 had Reagan not propped them up with gifts of wheat that were used to buy votes from midwestern farmers. This allowed the Soviets to maintain their pointless war in Afghanistan, eventually leading to the circumstances that allowed the Taliban to take over, and give Al Queda the base to plan the 9/11 attacks. Ronald Reagan was the best friend the Soviets ever had.

Note that I do not give Carter much credit in this affair. He was unaware of the results of his actions thanks to the uselessness of our own intelligence organizations.

[Oakminster]

Well, that's an.....interesting perspective. I disagree rather strongly, but in the interest of avoiding further hijacking of this thread, I'll leave it at that.

[ralph124c]

It seems (to me) that the old USSR was in dire straits for much of its existence-it very nearly collapsed (in 1922), due to famine and farmer's revolts. Lenin had to enact the NEP to save the state from overthrow. In the early 1960's (while recording triumphs in space), the USSR was forced to import huge amounts of food-eventually, Kruschev was overthrown because of spreading food riots.
In the 1970's, the USSR was facing bankruptcy-it was saved by the rise in world oil prices (that enabled the USSR to buy food and industrial equipment. The whole thing collapsed in the mid-80's-as the strain of competing with the USA (in armaments) caused economic collapse.
The USSR maintained its position by bluff and intimidation-but it was rotting away inside.

[TriPolar]

Well, that's an.....interesting perspective. I disagree rather strongly, but in the interest of avoiding further hijacking of this thread, I'll leave it at that.

If you are interested we can start a thread somewhere. You certainly will not be able to find any facts to support your perspective, whatever it may be.

[Typo Knig]

I always thought the worst thing the USSR could have done to the West was surrender. Then *we'd* have had to run the place! That would have been a giant mess. Surrender also goes against the point of having a county, against the entire weight of Russian history, and against the OP. But man, trying to run the Eastern Block would have hurt.

[Little Nemo]

Assassinate Ronald Reagan by 1976, and ensure Jimmy Carter is re-elected in 1980.Yes. According our own intelligence following the fall of the Soviet Unio, and their own intelligence uncovered after the collapse, the boycott of the 1980 Olympics bankrupted the Soviet Union. They would have collapsed by the end of 1982 had Reagan not propped them up with gifts of wheat that were used to buy votes from midwestern farmers. This allowed the Soviets to maintain their pointless war in Afghanistan, eventually leading to the circumstances that allowed the Taliban to take over, and give Al Queda the base to plan the 9/11 attacks. Ronald Reagan was the best friend the Soviets ever had.

Note that I do not give Carter much credit in this affair. He was unaware of the results of his actions thanks to the uselessness of our own intelligence organizations.I'd say both of these positions are too extreme. The Carter and the Reagan administration were both anti-Soviet. Many of the actions the Reagan administration took against the Soviet Union were the continuation of policies the Carter administration had been doing.

The Carter administration began covert funding to the Afghan resistance. The Carter administration began the military build-up that continued in the Reagan administration.

And while people may belittle the Olympic boycott, it was really no different than Reagan making his speech before the Berlin Wall. Both were public condemnations of the Soviet Union. They were symbolic but symbols can be meaningful.

[TriPolar]

And while people may belittle the Olympic boycott, it was really no different than Reagan making his speech before the Berlin Wall. Both were public condemnations of the Soviet Union. They were symbolic but symbols can be meaningful.

"Tear down this wall" was a hollow statement. The boycott was an action that bankrupted the Soviet Union, not symbolism.

[Labrador Deceiver]

"Tear down this wall" was a hollow statement. The boycott was an action that bankrupted the Soviet Union, not symbolism.

Cite, please. I googled it, and this thread is the first result that popped up.

[TriPolar]

Cite, please. I googled it, and this thread is the first result that popped up.

I'll do some research and respond in another thread, unless the OP doesn't mind the hijack.

[Labrador Deceiver]

I'll do some research and respond in another thread, unless the OP doesn't mind the hijack.

It isn't that big of a hijack really, but I'm fine with another thread.

[Terr]

"Tear down this wall" was a hollow statement. The boycott was an action that bankrupted the Soviet Union, not symbolism.
The Soviets spent about $2B on the Olympics in 1980. Even if you consider that a total loss, it is chump change for the country. Takes a lot more to "bankrupt" it.

Let's put it this way: (this is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union)): "CIA estimated in 1980s that the budget of Soviet propaganda abroad was between 3.5-4.0 billion dollars."

[TriPolar]

The Soviets spent about $2B on the Olympics in 1980. Even if you consider that a total loss, it is chump change for the country. Takes a lot more to "bankrupt" it.

Let's put it this way: (this is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union)): "CIA estimated in 1980s that the budget of Soviet propaganda abroad was between 3.5-4.0 billion dollars."

Then why did the Soviet Union come hat in hand to the US a year later looking for wheat? I'll find the cites, and you'll see the evidence that the Soviet Union was on the brink of mass starvation without our wheat.

Oh yeah, and the obvious, you need to generate more money than you are spending. How much they spent is irrelevant.

And oh yeah, oh yeah, it wasn't the money spent on the Olympics that was a problem, it was the lack of revenue that they were counting on.

[Terr]

Then why did the Soviet Union come hat in hand to the US a year later looking for wheat? I'll find the cites, and you'll see the evidence that the Soviet Union was on the brink of mass starvation without our wheat.

Oh yeah, and the obvious, you need to generate more money than you are spending. How much they spent is irrelevant.

And oh yeah, oh yeah, it wasn't the money spent on the Olympics that was a problem, it was the lack of revenue that they were counting on.
If you were referring to the grain embargo, why would you call it a "boycott"?

[TriPolar]

If you were referring to the grain embargo, why would you call it a "boycott"?

I'm not referring to the grain embargo. I am referring to Reagan breaking the embargo which allowed the Soviet Union to keep operating though.

[Terr]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/80/08/Russian_Aug_Sep1980.pdf

Although the embargo on grain sales to the Soviets was designed with the best of intentions, it had only a negligible impact on Soviet grain supply and on total U.S. grain exports. Estimates of the Soviet grain supply for the year ending in June were only one percent less than the pre-embargo forecasts. Estimates of U.S. grain exports were reduced sharply immediately following the embargo, but rose very soon after it was announced and, by July of this year, were approximately the same as the pre-embargo estimates.
...
Nevertheless, the embargo did have an impact on both the Soviets and the U.S. in that it resulted in less efficient patterns of trade and less efficient means of marketing. These inefficiencies increased somewhat the cost of food and feed to the Soviets and reduced somewhat the returns to U.S. farmers.

====================================

Hardly the "bankrupting" effect you're talking about.

[Jasper Kent]

Vodka.

[TriPolar]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/80/08/Russian_Aug_Sep1980.pdf


Hardly the "bankrupting" effect you're talking about.

That was written in 1980. No one in this country had sufficient information to make such predictions. And they turned out not to be true.

I have to do research now. It's hard finding 20 year old information that nobody wanted to dwell on because it showed how incompetent the US was in fighting the Cold War. But at least you are attempting to refute me with facts instead of political posturing.

[Terr]

That was written in 1980. No one in this country had sufficient information to make such predictions. And they turned out not to be true.
How'bout 1985: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa064.html

The U.S. embargo on grain shipments to the Soviet Union is instructive in this regard. In the end, the Soviets imported only 1 percent less grain than pre-embargo forecasts had predicted, and U.S. grain exports were about the same as pre-embargo estimates. What happened, according to economist Clifton B. Luttrell of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, was that "large quantities of U.S. grain were shipped to nations which normally purchase grain from other sources, thereby permitting these sources to supply grain to the Soviet Union.'[16] Similarly, Congress's Office of Technology Assessment found that the costs of the grain embargo to the U.S. economy "were at least as great as those which devolved on the U.S.S.R., and that the Soviet Union seems to have succeeded in replacing the United States as its principal agricultural supplier."[17]


Hell, let's try it this way: in 1980 USSR intended to import a record 25M metric tons of wheat from USA. The price at the time was $140/ton, approximately. That's $3.5B worth of wheat. So even if USSR had to buy it on the market at double the price (it didn't have to, not even close, but let's take an extreme situation) the embargo would have cost it an extra $3.5B. As I pointed out, that's approximately equal to what the Soviets spent at the time for foreign propaganda budget, and is a drop in the bucket.

[Disposable Hero]

I'll do some research and respond in another thread, unless the OP doesn't mind the hijack.

It's all good *munches popcorn*

Seriously, the whole topic is fascinating, unfortunately not much chance to reply in any depth at the moment but I'm reading with interest.

[Tristan]

The Soviet Union failed as much through poor leadership as it did a bad politico-economic system.

Assuming that I have complete rule, and don't have to worry about, for example, Beria arranging for an accident, My plans would go thusly.

1- Attempt to keep the Eastern Bloc nations within my sphere of influence, but follow the America\Canada model rather than just occupy them. Convert the massive industrial base towards making automobiles, home appliances, and heavy machinery, and market those to Eastern Bloc nations, along with supplying as much technical knowhow as I can. I am unsure of a method to imitate the "survival of the fittest" market actions within a Communist system, but I am sure it could be done. lucrative "profit sharing" for successful factories?

2- Scale back military development. It would become clear, quickly, that NATO is not planning to actually attack. While continuing military research and design, I see no reason to keep such a huge money-hungry beast around. The Soviets developed some amazing systems, but bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the joneses. I have no need for that, if my nations economy is strong enough.

3- Reform agriculture. Clearly, the collective farming model failed. Maybe it would work with modern heavy farming equipment, maybe it would work with a modern fertilizer industry, but as it was, it was not effective. Agrarian reform would be key to fulfilling the food needs of the Soviet Union. Maybe something along the lines of sharecropping, whereing a portion of the land worked by the farmers would be free for their own usage, and farmers market... um... Peoples Markets would become a critical part of the economy.

4- Less indoctrination in the schools. If you have a functional economy, and plenty of food, and valid reasons to be proud of your nation, then there is no need to indoctrinate your people. They will do it to themselves (see: American Exceptionalism). Soviet schooling was very, very good, and outside of accepting sciences and ideas that were against the states ideals, I see no reason to change them.


I think this would set the foundation for a strong state, but I don't know enough about pre-Soviet history to know how well it would play out with the satelite states and the internal minorities. The goal here was to make the Union self sufficient in food, with an internal market system (the damn place was big enough, after all) and enough motivation to end up with something similar to China today. Maybe.

As computer technology develops, integrate it as much as possible. Ironically, just as the tools were coming into being that would have made a command economy much more feasible, the biggest one around collapsed. Would be intersting to see a Central Control Bureau that records industrial output, compares it with demographic growth and change, and reconciles that with regional variances to produce shops with items that the people want, at a reasonable price, and all within the system.