Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-09-2018, 11:41 PM   #31
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2 View Post
The problem with that is that Roosevelt had lost trust in Stalin by the end. If anyone was trusting of the other, at first, it was FDR of Stalin, but before his death he sent a note to Stillwell, IIRC, observing that Stalin had already broken every pledge he'd made at Yalta.

It's actually very hard to see WWII ending in a way where the USSR and USA don't almost immediately become foes.
Yep, in fact I'd say it's more like there was brief period of time when they put aside their enmities to beat the nazi's. To me the big difference in both's position post war compared to pre-war was they both ended up de-facto actively setting international global policy. It's hard to avoid butting up against each other at that point.
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 03:53 AM   #32
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

So this leaves us the question of whether the USA and USSR could manage to be rivals without automatically considering one another enemies and triggering the arms race (history, eh?)?
We find that it would take massive divergence to make them friends - possibly as much as it would take to make their economic model truly viable - but perhaps we could avoid it with less than that.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 04:17 AM   #33
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel View Post
So this leaves us the question of whether the USA and USSR could manage to be rivals without automatically considering one another enemies and triggering the arms race (history, eh?)?
We find that it would take massive divergence to make them friends - possibly as much as it would take to make their economic model truly viable - but perhaps we could avoid it with less than that.

It's a tough one

Problem is there not just rivals competing within the sme system, but rivesl with competing ethos. The US and the west considered the USSR/communism to be an existential threat for large chunk of the C20th, and well the USSR returned the favor at times as well. (Of course the fact that both did so kind of builds on each other case for doing so!).


I think in order to have it become just a 'regular' rivalry, i.e. one without the military threat. You have to have one of them not be based on their fundamental principles.


But the problem is, as the world comes out of WW2 it is the USA and USSR as the two big powers, and they both got there through marshalling economic might to create military might (and applying said military might).

The question is always going to begging, and both have sphere of influence so huge it's almost impossible for them to keep a safety gap between them*. Made worse by the fact that the world has just come out of world war state and is a mess, and both sides have an interest in shaping it and the ongoing situations.



*earlier in history when you had say two great powers, the world was proportionally big enough for it to be possible for them to do their thing without running up against each other constantly. (And when it wasn't it often ended up in a conflict that saw one defeated or otherwise changed).
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 04:34 AM   #34
Minuteman37
 
Minuteman37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Kenai, Alaska
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Space Race?

My understanding is that the USSR didn't have a formal NASA equivalent and there accomplishments were spread among several groups that dipped into spacey things.

What if the Stalin successer realized besting the west in space was far safer, and in the long term more beneficial?
Minuteman37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 05:17 AM   #35
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minuteman37 View Post
Space Race?

My understanding is that the USSR didn't have a formal NASA equivalent and there accomplishments were spread among several groups that dipped into spacey things.

What if the Stalin successer realized besting the west in space was far safer, and in the long term more beneficial?
Without going into the way the USSR's space programme was structured (which TBF would juts be me half remembering stuff anyway!)*

But I can't help wonder that all you'd have is the same end result but the podium places reversed.


To be frank the main impetus to spend money was to beat the other side to various goals. (First into space, then into orbit, then manned in orbit then to the moon). And of course a lot of that goes hand in hand with developing ICBM technology!

Ultimately though once they stop directly competing they kind of both concentrate on different things and end up if not glady co-operating, but at least working along side each other.

Now what the cultural impact might have been of the Russians getting to the moon first would have been I don't know. Maybe the US might have double of quits go for mars or what have you in response (thus driving both space programmes forward again), who knows. But I get the impression that after the moon it gets very hard and very expensive so you start running into feasibility issues even with the heightened funding at the time even if the spirit is willing.

The problem is with the theory that you have a continuing space race rather than an arms race, is that we manged to have both in RL even the space race was won in 69'. So you'll have to have a compelling reason for why the US and USSR will stop developing and stockpiling ICBMS and Nuclear weapons etc while concentrating on space tech (tech that itself helps with ICBMs of course). Let alone conventional arms spending and competition.



*although IIRC it wasn't that decentralised even if there was competing projects and ideas (of course it's not like there wasn't compering projects and ideas in NASA at times)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-10-2018 at 07:57 AM.
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 06:42 AM   #36
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Assuming no major scientific breakthroughs, etc., the only way to save the USSR would be to avoid the massive expenditure on arms that it made in the 1970s and 1980s. Given Russian paranoia (and the USSR was a Russian empire), that would've been challenging. Here are the elements required in my opinion (asterisked items really did exist):

-US isolationism and profound antiwar sentiment in the 1970s and 1980s
-Significant reduction in Soviet military spending in the 1970s and 1980s
-Reduction in social tension in the non-Russian republics of the USSR and in Eastern Europe
-Avoidance of the Reagan Revolution and the US military buildup of the 1980s

The Alternative Timeline

First, Nixon has to be removed as president. This prevents the US/Chinese alliance that seriously threatened the Soviet flank and led to continued high Soviet paranoia and defense spending. It's tempting to have him lose to Humphrey or RFK, but I'd have him beaten by McGovern in 1972 after an ill-advised escalation of the war in Vietnam and a second Tet Offensive that the US press turns into an American Dien Bien Phu (the objective of the actual Tet Offensive).

In his first month in office, McGovern negotiates a humiliating peace treaty with North Vietnam and quickly withdraws American forces. South Vietnam falls to a conventional invasion on schedule and as in the actual timeline, the world yawns.

McGovern and the Democrats hold both houses of Congress and have a filibuster proof Senate majority. They go on a social spending spree, funded by deficits and significantly reduced military spending. This weakens the US economy somewhat. Stunned by the defeat in Vietnam, significant social upheaval and competition from the resurgent economies of Japan and Western Europe, the United States turns inward and begins an era of neo-isolation. US economic and military aid to Israel is severely curtailed.

In the early 1970s, the leaders of the Politburo stop drinking the Kool-Aid and privately recognize that they cannot currently defeat an aroused US and NATO. So they decide to "Put the Eagle to Sleep" and avoid provoking the US. They believe that the US is a narcissistic and spoiled nation that will turn inward in the absence of obvious threats.

So, the Soviets avoid overt meddling in the Middle East and the 1973 Yom Kippur War doesn't occur. Instead, Sadat and Meir (and later Begin) begin a slow peace process. This is quietly encouraged by McGovern and Brezhnev. Numerous assassination attempts against Sadat fail. Arabs still exercise their economic muscle by implementing an oil embargo, which constrains the US economy. Israel, lacking US support, is much more accommodating to Arab regimes. The Arabs, lacking Soviet support and fearful of the emerging Iranian regional power, are more reasonable as well. Palestinian terrorism never really takes off, particularly after Egyptian assassins kill Arafat in 1973, in reprisal for a failed attempt on Sadat's life.

McGovern pulls American support from all "immoral" regimes (i.e., repressive non-communist regimes like Iran). Iran becomes a regional power in the 1970s, buying most of its arms from the UK and France rather than the US.

The 1979 Iranian revolution does not occur. Historically, the Shah was dependent on US support and Carter forced his abdication. In this timeline, Iran is much closer aligned with France and the UK. France and the UK are far more realistic and say nothing when Khomeini is assassinated in Paris. The flareup of US patriotism triggered by the Iran Hostage Crisis and the explosion of Islamist terrorism in the 1980s don't occur. Arabs become far more worried about Iran than Israel and more or less abandon the Palestinians.

In the mid-1980s, a war erupts between Iran and Iraq. Eventually, the Arab Gulf States are drawn in. The results is a stagnant World War 1 clone that lasts 5 years and consumes a lot of Arab and Iranian wealth. The USSR and France clean up by selling weapons to both sides, ineffectual US protests notwithstanding.

Detente with the Soviets occurs on schedule as the Soviet nuclear arsenal achieves parity with the US in the early 1970s, but in this timeline, the Soviets resist the urge to openly rattle their saber. The SALT treaty occurs on schedule, but an additional provision banning deployment of new nuclear weapons systems for 20 years. The Soviets resist the temptation to deploy destabilizing weapons like the SS-18. The US never deploys the Pershing II (which was destabilizing due to its insane accuracy and ability to hit Soviet command assets in a very few minutes).

In 1976, Brezhnev dies (or is assassinated). A power struggle in the Politburo sees Andropov serve 2 years before being deposed; then Chernyenko takes over and retires in 1980 due to "poor health".

Distracted by these developments, the Soviet adventures in Afghanistan and Central America do not occur. A premier who is NOT of the WW2 generation takes power (think a competent or luckier Gorbachev 5 years earlier; I'll call him Gorbyclone). Gorbyclone is astute enough to recognize the tremendous economic power of the US (and the fragile economy of the USSR) so avoids militaristic adventures like Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, etc. Cuba sees its funding cut 80% and is unable to cause much trouble.

This allows the USSR to avoid the massive military expenditures of the 1970s and 1980s. It uses those resources for modest economic reforms. A compliant and cooperative US government enables this by selling technology and agricultural products to the USSR on a most favored nation basis.

Gorbyclone correctly sees that the Americans will sell him anything, so long as the USSR behaves.

Mao dies on schedule, but his successors continue the Cultural Revolution for another decade. The economic emergence of China occurs 10-20 years later than it did historically. China isn't seen as a huge threat to the USSR as a result.

McGovern serves 2 terms, then Jimmy Carter defeats Ronald Reagan in 1980. Carter continues McGovern's isolationist/detente posture. The massive conventional buildup of the 1980s does not occur. Gorbyclone allows modest political reforms in the occupied nations of Eastern Europe. He deftly avoids confrontation with the Polish Solidarity union by endorsing its anti-bureaucratic stance. The 1981 attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II doesn't occur.

Numerous public displays of detente occur, culminating in an international space station and a joint US/Soviet manned mission to orbit Mars in 1988. A mission to land on Mars is scheduled for 1992.

Gorbyclone anticipates the 21st century Chinese economic transformation by making serious market reforms while maintaining absolute political authority. This works reasonably well, since the Soviet economy is in far better shape in this timeline than it was historically. Numerous defense treaties are executed with the US and the USSR scrupulously avoids cheating.

The US continues its isolationist policies until the late 1980s, when George H.W. Bush is elected president. Although more conservative than Carter, Bush has no stomach for a massive and expensive conventional arms buildup. And the skillful political maneuvering by Gorbyclone gives him no reason to do so. Bush proudly proclaims a "New World Order". The Reagan Revolution never occurs.

The US, having avoided the massive arms buildup of the 1980s, is still an economic hyperpower despite the massive social upheaval of the 1970s. Gorbyclone realizes that there is no way to compete long-term with the US economy. He also determines that a conventional war is impractical (the USSR's military is also comparatively run-down) and likely to result in a nuclear holocaust. He begins a process of "Constructive Engagement" with the US that ultimately results in whatever the game master wants it to.

In this timeline, the USSR becomes a bit more capitalist and the West becomes a bit more Socialist. The Politburo is also more realistic and deft in foreign affairs. This allows the USSR to survive.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 04-10-2018 at 01:24 PM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 08:02 AM   #37
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
....

In this timeline, the USSR becomes a bit more capitalist and the West becomes a bit more Socialist. The Politburo is also more realistic and deft in foreign affairs. This allows the USSR to survive.
Nice, I like it!
Tomsdad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 08:04 AM   #38
RogerBW
 
RogerBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: near London, UK
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
Gorbyclone is astute enough to recognize the tremendous economic power of the US (and the fragile economy of the USSR)
Really, you'd think that some of the people who's seen that economic power win WWII (and the aftermath) would have noticed.

A setting I was working on a few years ago was aiming for an isolationist USA in the 1970s and 1980s, and this is what I came up with.

In 1967, LBJ is persuaded to intervene actively in the Six-Day War. OPEC starts its oil embargo against the US and Europe.

Someone leaks the true facts of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the anti-war movement gets a substantial boost as the USA's international credibility collapses. Race riots tear American cities apart through the long hot summer of 1967. (Even more.)

In late 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy (no relation) of Minnesota enters the presidential race on an explicitly anti-war platform. He gains the Democratic nomination, then the votes of a population tired of sending their children off to die for no obvious benefit. The American withdrawal from Vietnam is complete by the end of 1969, and the country turns inwards, in an attempt to put right the problems in its own house before telling others how to fix theirs. The four manned lunar landings impress the world, but there's no sense of vigour and no pressure to complete the series with Apollos 16-20. There may be a backlash against McCarthy in 1972 or 1976, but by that time the multipolar world is re-established, and the brief post-war "two superpower" era is seen as an aberration from the normal state of affairs.

NATO will still be NATO, but a bit more reluctant to go out and do things. In particular, the US regards it as it regards the UN: it'll grudgingly pay up eventually, but it's not enthusiastic about it. As long as there aren't any Soviet boots on American soil, the US is happy; it may well send "advisors", but it won't commit regular forces overseas.

…and without the American push against it the USSR sees less of a bogeyman to be fought off.
RogerBW is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 10:41 AM   #39
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerBW View Post
Really, you'd think that some of the people who's seen that economic power win WWII (and the aftermath) would have noticed.
Perhaps partly an example of the difference between what you can notice and what it's safe to notice and partly an example of the amazing ability not to notice things that don't fit with your worldview.
Also, the Soviets were convinced that they won WW2 on their own efforts - which was arguable in case of blood, not so much in terms of treasure.

Oh and, yeah ... Alt.history kudos to tbeard1999 in general. That's thorough, credible and does the job without the deployment of a single space bat.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2018, 01:19 PM   #40
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Making the USSR Great Again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Colonel View Post
Perhaps partly an example of the difference between what you can notice and what it's safe to notice and partly an example of the amazing ability not to notice things that don't fit with your worldview.
Also, the Soviets were convinced that they won WW2 on their own efforts - which was arguable in case of blood, not so much in terms of treasure.

Oh and, yeah ... Alt.history kudos to tbeard1999 in general. That's thorough, credible and does the job without the deployment of a single space bat.
Why thank you. The challenge with saving the USSR is that you have to find a credible way to reduce both sides' paranoia.

The Soviets were masters of miscalculation in my opinion. Or, they were too focused on short term gains. Of course, I have no idea what internal political pressures there were.

Anyhow, the Afghanistan and Central America adventures are perfect examples. There was no great enthusiasm in the US for an expensive military buildup in the 1970s. But the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (coupled with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which wasn't the fault of the Soviets) made Jimmy Carter - who was fond of scolding the American people for their purported inordinate fear of the Soviets - look like a gullible fool. The 1980s US military buildup actually began in the last year of the Carter Administration. Worse (from the Soviet viewpoint), this led to Reagan being elected. Carter was extremely accommodating to the Soviets; Reagan, not so much. Reagan's popularity was enhanced by his hard line towards the Soviets. Which they made easy by pointless adventures in Central America, Angola, etc.

From a strictly cost-benefit analysis I can't imagine any benefit that could possibly be gained from Afghanistan and Central America that would justify triggering the US military buildup in the 1980s.

For our part, our intelligence services - and those of our NATO allies - consistently overestimated the Soviet military capabilities. Although, they were absolutely correct as to the trend - Soviet military spending increased throughout the 1970s. This intelligence failure happened during Democrat and Republican administrations, so I don't think there was anything partisan about it. The Soviets were masters at misinformation; paradoxically, they were too good at it. Anyhow, intelligence failures and Soviet adventures led to a US military buildup in the 1980s that bankrupted the Soviet Union.

So it isn't enough to avoid Reagan. You have to also somehow make the Politburo more astute than they apparently were.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 04-10-2018 at 01:32 PM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.