Could the Soviet Union have won the Cold war?

[Cannae]

Hi all,

The cold war is far from my expertise and I am wondering if you think the SU had any chance of achieving victory in the cold war. By victory, I mean a significant elimination of democratic influence around the world?

Cannae

[phylo_roadking]

No. there were too many LARGE chunks of the world that would have required a hot war to do that! It was only in the "debateable" areas - Africa, South and Central America, the Middle East, South-East Asia etc. - that the brush wars, backed insurgencies etc. of the "Cold" War worked or could have stood a chance at achieving that.

Western Europe, Scandanavia, the UK, and North America would have required the hot war...

[Cannae]

No. there were too many LARGE chunks of the world that would have required a hot war to do that! It was only in the "debateable" areas - Africa, South and Central America, the Middle East, South-East Asia etc. - that the brush wars, backed insurgencies etc. of the "Cold" War worked or could have stood a chance at achieving that.

Western Europe, Scandanavia, the UK, and North America would have required the hot war...

So it was a matter of diplomacy, then? How profitable were the Angola, Cuba, Guatemala, SE Asia, Israel-Arab conflicts for the communists IYO?

[phylo_roadking]

So it was a matter of diplomacy, then?

Nope...

Western Europe, Scandanavia, the UK, and North America would have required the hot war...

How profitable were the Angola, Cuba, Guatemala, SE Asia, Israel-Arab conflicts for the communists IYO?

Define "profitable" in this context??? Money terms? Military advantage? Political advantage?

[Cannae]

So it was a matter of diplomacy, then?

Nope...

Western Europe, Scandanavia, the UK, and North America would have required the hot war...

How profitable were the Angola, Cuba, Guatemala, SE Asia, Israel-Arab conflicts for the communists IYO?

Define "profitable" in this context??? Money terms? Military advantage? Political advantage?

Was a hot war winnable for the Soviets, though?

And by profitable I mean the cost-benefits of taking the territory (Political influence in other areas, resources gained vs. consumed, future maintenance)

[phylo_roadking]

And by profitable I mean the cost-benefits of taking the territory (Political influence in other areas, resources gained vs. consumed, future maintenance)

Well - several of the Africa and of course the South East Asian affairs were Chinese-backed rather than Soviet...and in the case of the Africans, sometimes also Chinese-backed Cuban Places like Mozambique and Angola were next to ruined socially and economically by the long guerilla wars.

The nearest (sic) places to "Soviet" were some of the Soviet-aligned Middle Eastern countries...Syria being of course the most longlasting of them...but the USSR didn't "gain" their resources! Even today, China has had to buy up various (many!) mineral rights and extraction rights aorund the world. And in the case of South America, the affected nations saw wild seesawing between Right and Left Wing governments - the Soviets' net gain was the instability on the U.S.' doorstep!

Was a hot war winnable for the Soviets, though?

Of course not - sooner or later the West would have resorted to nuclear weapons, if the Soviets hadn't done so as part of their initial offensive....and in that event EVERYBODY loses!

[Rivet]

chance of achieving victory in the cold war

No. The Soviets had their victories, for sure, but winning the global struggle for dominance? Not a chance.

Winning bush wars and revolutions in the Third World is one thing, dominating the West is quite another. It would require a war and a full on atomic exchange with the west would leave the world pretty much hosed (either directly or via the aftermath).

Since that option was off the table, the SU had to compete economically and technologically; both of which failed miserably. The economic model in the SU was completely unworkable as evidenced by the total collapse of said.

[antfreire]

The way I see it is that the West could have taken a devastated world and even painfully could save it somehow. But what could the Communist Powers do to a devastated world when they could not feed their own people in peace times?

[Guaporense]

No. The USSR was simply too small to actually stood a chance of forcing the combined strength of NATO to back down.

NATO countries had 70-80% of the world's industrial and scientific production by 1980, the USSR had 10-8%: In 1980, the GDP of NATO was about 7 times larger:

GDP

Canada 1980 US$ 268,889,427,548
Former USSR 1980 US$ 940,037,885,448
Northern Europe 1980 US$ 885,225,831,552
Southern Europe 1980 US$ 847,121,287,628
United States 1980 US$ 2,767,500,002,768
Western Europe 1980 US$ 2,115,337,445,947

NATO: 6,885 billion dollars
USSR: 940 billion dollars

Also, per capita income in NATO was 4 times larger than in the USSR: 12,000 dollars versus 3,200 dollars.

Manufacturing

NATO: over 30 million motor vehicles (all types, cars, trucks, tractors)
USSR: 2.2 million motor vehicles

Science

In terms of scientific publications the discrepancy was similar: in 1980, NATO countries published 320,000 scientific articles, the USSR published 39,000 scientific articles. The world produced ca. 400,000 scientific articles in 1980.

NATO, under the US leadership, simply RULED the Planet Earth. The Soviet Union was simply fighting against impossible odds. It showed, actually, how stupid the Soviet leadership was.

*Germany, in WW2, had a much better shot in winning, actually, than the Soviet Union had in the Cold War. Germany controlled most of Europe, the territories under German control had, in 1980 terms, a GDP of ca. 2.8 trillion dollars, and they were fighting GDPs, in 1980 terms, of 4.3 trillion dollars. Not that large discrepancy.

[South]

Good morning Guaporense,

Re: "too small";

I believe you are measuring the size of beet sugar production and not nuclear ordnance with global and regional delivery systems.

There were major events post Pervaya Molniya where the US "backed down".

Do note that scientific publications can block alpha particles but not much else. The number of scientific publications produced by NATO ally Turkey or NATO ally Iceland does not directly or indirectly relate to whether the USSR could have won the Cold War.

The doctrine of CommunISM was a failure. It was not adopted without being pushed by a military force and the related tangents such as a sophisticated diplomatic corps and vehicles of economic warfare eg Amtork, Westorg, Arcos.

The US did NOT rule Planet Earth. Review DeGaulle's recognition of China and his force de frappe.

Fast forward for a combination summary and validation:

"First, Russia remains the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes. As every president since John F. Kennedy has recognized, Russia's cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war."

Graham Allison and Robert Blackwell in article titled "10 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters", POLITICO, 31 Oct 2011, pg 19.

Since the thread's title contains the word "won", I'll mention a Samuel P. Huntington quote I like:

"The West's victory in the Cold War has produced not triumph but exhaustion."

"The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order", Samuel P. Huntington, 1997, ISBN: 0-684-81164-2, pg 82.


Warm regards,

Bob

[phylo_roadking]

Manufacturing

NATO: over 30 million motor vehicles (all types, cars, trucks, tractors)
USSR: 2.2 million motor vehicles

Ah, my old dad would have been so happy The Warsaw pact overrun by the Britsh Army of the Rhine's massed Morris Minors....

[George Lepre]

Hi all -

I do not believe that the Soviet bloc could have invaded the West, but there was a time when the USSR had an edge over the West in the Cold War. This was in the mid to late 1970s. The United States had withdrawn from Vietnam and morale/funding in its military forces were at low ebb. The Soviets, on the other hand, looked at the communist victories in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, (former) Portuguese Guinea, Mozambique, Angola, and Nicaragua and believed, as the noted British historian Christopher Andrew titled his book, The World was Going Our Way.

"South" can probably weigh in on this better than I so his comments on this matter would be welcome.

Best regards,

George

[antfreire]

Manufacturing

NATO: over 30 million motor vehicles (all types, cars, trucks, tractors)
USSR: 2.2 million motor vehicles

Ah, my old dad would have been so happy The Warsaw pact overrun by the Britsh Army of the Rhine's massed Morris Minors....

I would have bet on the Morris Minor against the Ladas any time. The Ladas did not need an enemy to crumble. They did it by themselves.

[antfreire]

The way I see it, URSS lost the Cold War in the Berlin Blockade. The Ruusians were always thinking that the capitalist powers would go to a war in which they exhausted themselves and then the Soviets hordes would pick up the pieces. In 1918 the opportunity presented but they were not ready fighting a civil war of their own. in 1940 Stalin thought that the opportunity would present again and Hitler deeated France in less than a month and with the German Army as fresh as the day the war started. Now he thought that hitler would try to invade GB and while he was inmersed in that battle he would come form the east and grab everything for himself. Hitler betrayed him and attacke the SU. So the last opportunity would be the post war when the imperalist nations (thought Stalin) would go to war for the leftover. Wrong again Comrade!

[LWD]

There is at least some evidence that some of the Soviets considered their system supperior to that of the cpatalist countries. In which case by avoiding war they gave that superiority time to come into play. History proved them wrong.