Greenhorn wrote:
I'll take a crack at answering OP. I'm assuming he wants a Red Dawn type scenario?
Join the club
I’ll point out though the OP specified the invasion happens in 1950 and the ‘revolt’ of the US in 1976 so…
The Iranian hostage crisis never happens and the Soviets don't invade Afghanistan in 1979 owing to a more pro-US situation in Iran threatening any possible invasion (or some other reason, doesn't matter). Carter wins a narrow victory in 1980, and Andropov, without the stress of Afghanistan, is in better health.
Only way the ‘relations’ can be better is if the revolution never happens and that takes the Shah not getting back into power which arguably means relations are worse earlier but…
Without the hostage crisis I’m still not sure Carter can win under the circumstances but…
The US economy continues to stagnate into the early 1980s, and Carter's win only serves to lessen US hope for the future.
While granting Carter’s tendency to tell the truth rather than sugar coat things didn’t inspire the way Reagan did, (a good part of why he lost) Carter actually worked hard on solutions rather than making grand but inevitably unworkable plans. He’d actually managed to reverse some of the economic effects and get the economy moving again but it didn’t show up until Reagan was in office. (Which he claimed to have done. Nothing unusual of course in politics but arguably had Carter been in office it would have been just as noticeable and been similarly uplifting)
A bad economy means the US begins some minor troop withdrawals from Europe.
Actually we don’t tend to pull troops for economic reasons especially when they are stationed somewhere considered economically ‘neutral’ which Europe was. In fact we usually increase troop levels due to that fact as they can be withdrawn from places where they cost more to station. Note the Middle East is actually another of those economically neutral areas because we’re paid (at the time) to station troops there.
Afghanistan descends into bloody civil war, and there's worry that the conflict could spill over into the USSR, Iran, or other neighboring countries as Kabul losses control of the countryside. Carter decides that the worsened economic and geopolitical conditions mean the US should focus even more on renewable/green energy sources, and we see a gradual reduction in US presence in the Middle East.
We were pissed at Saudi at the time for the oil embargo and we still kept troops there because the Saudi’s were paying for them to be there. “Going green” isn’t going to change that and in fact, as above, Carter would do the opposite for the very reason the area is unstable and the Saudi’s would pay for it. Contrary to popular opinion the Middle East is NOT in fact all about the oil, mostly maybe but not all.
This is seen as a terrible move by Europe and Israel, who begin to see growing beliefs that the US is becoming incapable/unwilling to help them.
Which is exactly why we wouldn’t do it and why no President during the Cold War could suggest it, because it would signal exactly that as Europe was and is still more dependent on the Middle East than America is.
This feeling propels the Greens into power in West Germany, and they negotiate greater US troop withdrawals from German soil in an attempt to demilitarize the border and seek renewed peace efforts with the Soviets.
Actually it would have the opposite effect since the Greens were well known to be not only anti-American but less than plausibly understanding of European defense issues. It was no joke that it was assumed if they got into power at the time Moscow would have an engraved invitation to dine in Europe’s capitals the next day. They had to work long and hard to undo that reputation AFTER the Soviet Union fell apart which is telling. And it wasn’t because they were ‘controlled’ by Moscow or any of that bunk but because they simply didn’t believe that Moscow wouldn’t leave Europe alone once the Americans were gone.
Andropov senses his opportunity and moves to grow USSR-West German relations. He agrees to sign some treaties with the West German government promising troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and the world is surprised to see multiple Soviet divisions pack up on trains headed east. Unbeknownst to the Germans, however, this is part of Andropov's plan. The more hardline Soviet government believes that the opportunity to finally defeat the US in the Cold War is here, and is using the peace initiative as a ruse to disguise their re-deployment in the Far East, where they are stationed along the Manchurian border. Many are also demobilized and transferred to labor service building roads, buildings, and other structures, ostensibly to boost the sagging Soviet economy (but really to prepare infrastructure needed for an attack against the US). By now the USSR has become increasingly dependent on oil and natural gas for its revenue, and Andropov and others hope to further corner the global oil market by destabilizing the Middle East and, if possible, secure other fields. This is in spite of a worsening wheat harvest.
…
…
This is exactly what NATO and the US postulated any peace initiative offer from the USSR to be since the mid-70s. In fact any offer to move troops AWAY from the border was to be roundly rejected and protested and with good reason! To put it bluntly troops are SAFER away from the border because it moves them out of range of tactical nuclear weapons so doing so means an attack is imminent or planned. In fact the reason the USSR didn’t propose this idea is because they KNEW NATO would then do the same thing for the same reason. Like I said the big reason the Greens didn’t get a lot of traction despite the large numbers they could turn out for rallies and marches was simply that they refused to believe the things both sides knew about each other. “Demilitarization” of the border was clearly seen as ‘clearing the decks for action’. (In fact the Soviets DID have penetration of the main Green movements to know THEY meant it when they were planning on moving out the nukes and troops but they simply could not believe that the military wouldn’t use that to their advantage. Seriously, Pearl Harbor and Barbarossa were burned into the brains on both sides and it was almost impossible NOT to see most of the ‘obvious’ peace-initiatives as something sinister under the circumstances)
In Latin America the growing US isolationism allows several Communist insurgencies to flourish.
Actually that was happening anyway long before Carter was President and he’s already been upping aid to anti-Communist regimes in the region. Where he failed…
{quote]Nicaragua is taken over by the FSLN[/quote]
Was already inevitable by that point. Reagan actually missed an opportunity that I think Carter would have grabbed in that between 1979 and 1981 Reagan refused all aid or dialog with the overall “Junta of National Reconstruction” of which some members of made overtures to participate in with the US but the FSLN was not one of those factions. And by not doing so allowed the FSLN to purge the centrist and moderate factions and become the sole power group and effective government of Nicaragua. The FSLN was never as popular as they claimed and opposition groups sprang up immediately but they lacked the power to effectively challenge the FSLN without a legitimate governmental opposition. Had that opposition been in place it’s likely the FSLN would have faced both an inside and outside opposition which arguably would have led to an earlier popular defeat. By not supporting that earlier opportunity and then supporting the Contra’s which had no general following in the public and in fact helped keep the FSLN stay in power I argue Reagan actually lost Nicaragua and have damaged relations to this day. This is not an isolated event either.
… and Carter never invades Grenada.
Without the disaster of the Iranian Hostage crisis this may not be as likely as one might think. Even WITH that in the past the problem with Grenada was that the US wasn’t solely the force behind the invasion and Carter is just as likely as Reagan to agree with the reasoning. The airstrip was never shown to be a valid excuse but neighboring nations were VERY worried about the Marxist coup and military rule and once Bishop was executed fears that that government along with Cuba and the USSR were aggressively exporting revolution and a request was made for US intervention. Now in OTL Britain and several others opposed the invasion this was mostly because it came out of the blue and they were not advised for security reasons. (Considering I spent Christmas and New Years of 1983/4 doing 4 other peoples jobs because they had been allowed leave for those same “security” reasons I have mixed feeling about the security) This was because the Reagan administration did not ‘trust’ (actually the CIA didn’t but that’s a nit with this bunch, and I voted for the guy the first time) the allies to keep it a secret. He also felt that as it was in what the US considered “its” sphere of influence consultation with “other” nations was not required. Which is arguably true but politically short-sighted and rather rude considering those other nations had interests in the area. Carter would have likely consulted and warned at the very least which would have likely brought support rather than condemnation. And a reason that Reagan did it was frankly to wash the taste of “Operation Eagle Claw” out of the military and public psyche which was arguably needed. Carter actually has MORE reason to invade for humanitarian reasons than Reagan did for selfish (US) reasons.
Soon the FMLN gain control in El Salvador and Guatemala, and rebellions in the Chiapas region in Mexico begin.
Er, the FMLN didn’t get a clear ‘win’ till 1989 and even then they weren’t being greatly aided by the USSR, Cuba or Nicaragua despite what people in the US were being told. Frankly the US and allied support of the government were never significantly increased over planned levels and the US supported the negotiations for ending the civil war.
Similarly Carter never actually cut aid to the Guatemalan government OTL and has less reason to do so TTL. Now he’s less likely to be friendly and praise Montt than Reagan was, (another political mistake by the Gipper) but there’s no real reason to see the rebels winning militarily.
Lastly Chiapas was actually rather stable and leftist at the time and the influx of refugees actually had the central government increase military presence which they WELCOMED. So again rebellion is not really likely.
US public opinion is torn as many want to focus on the country's continued economic woes and worry about a second Vietnam should they stop any of these movements.
A valid concern of the period actually and one of the reasons Reagan needed a clear ‘win’ to balance. Hence the invasion of Grenada. Don’t see it being that divided as per OTL since the right won’t authorize anything and the left won’t propose anything.
This success further emboldens Cuba and the USSR, which begin a renewed close partnership, the USSR basing troops there. The Soviets also station troops in Nicaragua and Grenada, ostensibly to keep the peace and after invitations from their governments.
Er, Castro never forgave the USSR for the Cuban Missile Crisis and forbade more than a handful of Russian “advisers” on Cuban soil afterwards. NONE of the Cuban government would be supportive of stationing Soviet troops there. Neither would Nicaragua for similar reasons and if nothing else got the US going even suggesting doing so would. (In reality everyone was quite well aware that ‘inviting’ the Russians to station troops in your country was tantamount to inviting them to take OVER your country and while they might be ‘fellow travelers’ Latin American’s don’t like Russians any more than they like Americans of the period. The idea of ‘close cooperation’ beyond financing and arms sales among Communists/Marxist movements pretty much died a violent death in the late 60s)
The US Congress also becomes divided when an anti-Carter wave puts the Republicans in control of the House and Senate, all but preventing any major legislative action.
Plausible since that’s exactly what happened with the Republican majority and Clinton. Carter will get aid and arms but no direct action. (Ya, the group which told the Dems “You can’t wait to declare war until YOUR President is in power” did exactly that, more than once. Color me NOT shocked at all)
The lack of a US response to the situation in Latin America adds fuel to the flame of isolationism in Europe, and soon Green Party aligned movements gain control of many continental governments. Albania looks favorably upon Andropov's tougher stance on the West, and begins rekindling its relationship with the Warsaw Pact.
Eh, again the Greens didn’t win in the Cold War for a good reason and Europe having to go it alone is far more reason for them to lose rather than win but… And Albania isn’t likely to look ‘favorably’ on increased tensions with the west. In the 80s they were hoping to do a Yugoslavia and be a gateway and in fact Moscow was encouraging it as a conduit for western goods.
Eventually, however, there is a backlash in the US, and Reagan soars in national polls ahead of the 1984 elections.
Carter’s gone anyway due to term limits, I’m not sure Reagan’s going to get another shot though if he missed the first time. More likely the Republicans put up Bush or someone else and use Reagan as a mouthpiece. He was pushing it when elected OTL and frankly only being able to go two terms was a blessing as he was showing his age when he left office. I’d agree it’s likely with the spin to get an Republican elected, (voter fatigue is a thing here after all and we tend to switch parties every other cycle for a reason, which will make next year QUITE interesting) but it’s arguable if they will be as fire-breathing as Reagan was since the economy will be doing better and despite the trouble south of the border things will be looking up.
Andropov is worried by this as he sees Reagan and his movement as a threat to the decline the West has found itself in, and okays plans to take action against the United States to preempt it.
And even if it IS Reagan or another fire-eater Republican the problem is they’ve lost four years of build-up time and effort and as Andropov was even less “concerned” with the Soviet economy than Brezhnev was/will-be… (And actually OTL Andropov WAS more concerned with the Soviet internal economy and markets which he would have put funding and effort towards if Reagan hadn’t been elected OTL, or so they say)
And let’s face it “preempting’ a US recovery by force is a non-starter even with a supposed ‘passive’ Europe on your doorstep
A bad wheat harvest in 1982-1984 and a worsening outlook for the USSR oil market mean that the USSR becomes convinced (for whatever reason...) to invade the US and secure its rich grain and oil fields. The plan will involve operations against the pipeline in Alaska, as well as an invasion of the southern United States in a drive on Washington from Cuba. This is helped along by Mexico's PRI fumbling the worsened economic condition and giving way to a more radicalized left assuming power over the country. The new Mexican government agrees to launder Soviet equipment to the Central American militaries and agrees to sell foodstuffs and fuel to Nicaragua, Cuba, Grenada, etc. to help alleviate logistical problems.
There are bad decisions, there are bat-shit crazy decisions and then there is this which outdoes and encompasses them all
Yes I know “Red Dawn” among others used this scenario but the fact is the Latin American Communists/Marxists were no more willing to take on the US for the USSR than anyone else was. Logistics and internal issues aside, (and those are immense enough) the fact is they simply didn’t see eye to eye at all with the Soviet style Communism. They wanted the US out of Latin America but they didn’t WANT America nor the backlash if and when America came looking for someone to pound into the sand. Let the Russians attack Alaska, Latin America will sit back and watch the “super powers” grind each other into dust. There is NO upside to getting involved in any way, shape or form. Frankly this is why the Soviets didn’t every really back and South or Central American movements. Cuba did but they were after all “American” Communists and understood the players, the Russian’s didn’t.
People STILL tend to think of “Communists/Marxists” as a “block” of thought and action but that’s not even true in Europe at the time where even the Warsaw Pact at this point is no longer monolithically marching to Moscow’s drum. Latin American “Communism/Marxism” was as foreign to European Communism/Marxism as they were to Asian and Chinese Communists and THOSE were as far removed from Soviet Communism as to be almost opposed! It’s like “assuming” the NATO nations will gladly go to town on the WP at America’s lifted finger rather than being a defensive alliance with all that implies about offensive action. Yet people, (on both sides) still assume that can easily happen.
The other thing you missed, (and it’s understandable) is that once Russia goes after Alaska, (and no one else can do it) then NATO goes active in Europe no matter if the Greens are in charge or not. The end game is obvious from the start because once America is gone there’s no one left EXCEPT Europe and they can’t do it alone. So it’s now or never and “never” is not an option.
The invasion commences sometime between September 1984 and January 1985, before the new Reagan administration gets settled. The Communists are able to occupy parts of the southeast
South WEST actually though they will not get into California or Texas they will do a lot of damage but being as it’s for all intents and purposes another “surprise attack” don’t expect the US to stop short of the South Pole without unconditional surrender by all belligerents. ESPECIALLY if it’s Reagan or another Republican in charge. (And don’t expect anyone to argue either THIS is one of those reasons you don’t piss off Americans)
They MIGHT get on-shore but I’m doubting it since that’s literally more monitored and defended than the German border at the time. Literally all of NORAD is going to be watching the area the moment the Russians sortie a single ship let alone enough to get troops across.
… before getting curb stomped and pushed into the Atlantic sometime in the 1985/1986 time frame, and Reagan is deemed as the great hero of the Great Patriotic War.
Ya, the SOUTH Atlantic and it would be WWIII not the Great Patriotic War since that’s already been used and we don’t like used things
Randy
