In hindsight, what should the USSR have done after WW2 to deny

>>2821458
>provoke anti-keynesian mccarthyists to win US elections

>Put military bases in Latin America and refuse US demands to leave

>Force germany to be united and utterly neutral in the UN just like Austria

>give nukes to Mao

>help norks to completely conquer the south before NATO intervention

>>2821458

how about scientifically study the viability of their demented economic project and turn it into something closer to a social-liberal state capitalism instead of being >MUH REVOLUTION and denying any useful critique while people were getting fatter and happier wherever Uncle Sam put a base.

>>2821458
Thing was that the Soviets were looking inward first and securing their own ambitions before projecting power outward, and it's pretty justifiable seeing as Russia was invaded twice in a span of 30 years.

the first thing on the Soviet's agenda is to make sure another major invasion can never happen again, so the Eastern Bloc was established to shield them from the West.

Next was repairing all the damage done to Eastern Europe during the war, along with making sure the economy didn't bottom out as a result of the now devastated regions in Ukraine and western Russia.

By the time WWII ended, Russia was in little shape to lead a world revolution with 20% of its population killed on the battlefield, the Soviets needed to focus on recovery before provoking another major world conflict, hence the nature of the rather small scale fighting of Korea, a war fought with World War II still fresh in memory and neither side having much will to expand it into a larger conflict.

>Don't rig elections in Eastern Europe. Even if the capitalists won they would face significant pro-soviet opposition and the USSR could've funded proxy civil wars

lol

Good luck when the countries are literally willing to die for Nagy, Wladyslaw, and Dubcek as early as the 50s/60s. All you're doing is accelerating the results of perestroika and glasnost. It was unsustainable without tanks

>>2821458
>Don't rig elections in Eastern Europe. Even if the capitalists won they would face significant pro-soviet opposition and the USSR could've funded proxy civil wars across Eastern Europe, like in Greece.

too risky, the eastern blocks purpose is to be a buffer zone for russia

>Fund Greek communist fighters until the end

don't know much about this, maybe

>Don't send aid to socialist allies except china

severely limits power projection

>Instigate communist coups in France and Italy

easily countered by secret police

> Fund socialist guerillas in spain

the guerillas were all but irrelevant after Franco took over

>Provoke western military intervention in Eastern Europe so they could fight a protracted guerilla war

way too risky

>Purge Khruschev

possibly

>Don't alienate Tito

there's no chance that Yugoslavia will join the Warsaw Pact. It might be better to invade and suck up more casualties.

>Fund more consumer products and build a blue water navy instead of a massive army once the USSR got nukes

It'd still be inferior to the west

IMO
>erase all culture in occupied lands and replace it with Russian culture
>no reforms, use nukes as threats in exchange for food like a giant north korea

Become socialist capitalists like China and try to economically outcompete the USA

>sent aid to china
why send anything to those ingrates

the only reason they had any support was because their army was occupying the land

>>2821458
>In hindsight, what should the USSR have done after WW2 to deny capitalist empires from controlling the world market and be portrayed in a positive light?

Send their own spies, so when the people revolted and seized power, the western backed nationalist movements didn't instantly counter-coup them.
The Cold War was won by guys in suits with briefcases of money in South America and Africa. Possibly a few in China.

USA spies just outmaneuvered USSR spies in the "neutral" countries and prevented the spread of communism.

>>2821458
In hindsight, we see that USSR failed and China didn't.
So the answere is to be more like China. To not challenge USA on an international stage, a fight that Soviet Union couldn't win. Instead accept American Hegemony and force on domestic issues and slowly build up the economy of USSR and its satellite states, until you are ready to face USA on equal ground

>>2823665
The USSR and China split, because the USSR wanted to move a bit towards market and having small business, and China wanted hard communism and marxism.
Then one single guy, probably convinced by outside sources or scared of USSR, opened up China to world trade. Oh, and he was hated for it too.

>>2823689
>The USSR and China split, because the USSR wanted to move a bit towards market and having small business, and China wanted hard communism and marxism.
Alliances split over geopolitical interests, not over "a bit more market"

>>2823694
>Alliances split over geopolitical interests
Khrushchev secret speech is what ultimately ruin any sort of co-operation between the two.

>>2821458
Focused more inward.
If the Soviets had not destroyed so much of their own farmland for industry and sink loads of money and resources into building up to support communism and fight the United States, they could have increased their own infrastructure and food output, this would help alleviate or even stop the need to import food from the United states, they should have also invested more into helping pact nations build back up following world War 2. And have not had the policy of making their allies be forced to rely on them for most their equipment.
The Soviets went full centralized authoritarian with their policies however so they invested a lot of money into stuff they could not afford in the long run.

>>2823694
They split over ideological differences, China thought USSR is betraying the revolution and going capitalist.