Maximum possible soviet influence in Africa

[Monk78]

What is the most optimistic outlook on soviet influence in Africa ? Not counting the North African Arab speaking nations

Timeline is 1960-1990

What measures can Soviets adopt to maximize their potential in Africa , which players or forces to back ? What are the critical countries to secure ? How can their Allies help them the most ?

 

[Monk78]

Let’s start with the most obvious Congo or Zaire

What can Soviets do to dethrone mobutu after he initially comes to power?

 

[mtpalmer1]

What can Soviets do to dethrone Mobutu after he initially comes to power?

I'm a bit opaque on when that actually is. If you mean circa 1965, it is probably too late or at least too hard. The Soviet's best chance for a puppet Congolese regime needs changes from '64 at the latest. The Soviets need to convince their client, the Simbas (People's Republic of Congo if you prefer) to not take hostages and so avoid any Belgian-American intervention (Dragon Rouge et al). If they displace undesirables without harming them (big, big if, I know), the western powers may be disinclined toward direct involvement. If they can subsequently maintain a relatively stable regime in Stanleyville beyond the end of '64, a play for the rest of Congo becomes a lot easier down the line.

It may be fun to imagine how the Soviet Union goes about preventing western intervention. The Belgians would seem to be the weak link (no offence to Belgium but I'm comparing them to 60s US military might). Perhaps by shadowing Belgian trooping flights so they get the message or perhaps more fancifully, a shoot-down event. Either by carefully positioned cruiser over the Med or somewhere across the vast tracts of empty desert. As I said, perhaps a bit fanciful. I think a would-be PRCongo might rely more on western apathy and bluff than on the Soviets truly going to bat for them but stranger things have happened.

If successful in maintaining a foothold, they would still need to deal with more indirect interventions, such as the CIA air assets in country (A-26s* & T-28s). I could envision a detachment of MiG-15UTIs at Stanleyville, ostensibly to train PRCongo pilots, "absolutely not" getting any Soviet instructors involved! On the ground, I'll leave it to those better versed.

Another possibility is that in the negotiations in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, while chits like Jupiters are being traded, a wider dialogue is entered into by the superpowers. Perhaps the fate of various strategic backwaters is settled, with a moratorium on any US intervention in the Congo being exchanged for concessions elsewhere? Mobutu never gets throned in the first place - or has a change of spots!

* I know it should be B-26 by this stage but I personally adopt a first-come first-serve policy, so a B-26 is a Marauder until the end of time!

 

[Monk78]

I'm a bit opaque on when that actually is. If you mean circa 1965, it is probably too late or at least too hard. The Soviet's best chance for a puppet Congolese regime needs changes from '64 at the latest. The Soviets need to convince their client, the Simbas (People's Republic of Congo if you prefer) to not take hostages and so avoid any Belgian-American intervention (Dragon Rouge et al). If they displace undesirables without harming them (big, big if, I know), the western powers may be disinclined toward direct involvement. If they can subsequently maintain a relatively stable regime in Stanleyville beyond the end of '64, a play for the rest of Congo becomes a lot easier down the line.

It may be fun to imagine how the Soviet Union goes about preventing western intervention. The Belgians would seem to be the weak link (no offence to Belgium but I'm comparing them to 60s US military might). Perhaps by shadowing Belgian trooping flights so they get the message or perhaps more fancifully, a shoot-down event. Either by carefully positioned cruiser over the Med or somewhere across the vast tracts of empty desert. As I said, perhaps a bit fanciful. I think a would-be PRCongo might rely more on western apathy and bluff than on the Soviets truly going to bat for them but stranger things have happened.

If successful in maintaining a foothold, they would still need to deal with more indirect interventions, such as the CIA air assets in country (A-26s* & T-28s). I could envision a detachment of MiG-15UTIs at Stanleyville, ostensibly to train PRCongo pilots, "absolutely not" getting any Soviet instructors involved! On the ground, I'll leave it to those better versed.

Another possibility is that in the negotiations in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, while chits like Jupiters are being traded, a wider dialogue is entered into by the superpowers. Perhaps the fate of various strategic backwaters is settled, with a moratorium on any US intervention in the Congo being exchanged for concessions elsewhere? Mobutu never gets throned in the first place - or has a change of spots!

* I know it should be B-26 by this stage but I personally adopt a first-come first-serve policy, so a B-26 is a Marauder until the end of time!

B26 was also the widow maker too !
We can even have a detachment of Czechoslovak or East German pilots in TupelovTU-2
Cargo ships disguised as caring humanitarian supplies may be loaded with small arms
I was thinking of a scenario in which soviet paratroopers can intervene but I can’t think of any place where they can safely fly from in the mid-1960s

 

[Gillan1220]

I was thinking the Soviets had a presence in South Yemen, Somalia, and Eritrea, perhaps they could put a naval base in those regions. Not sure how but this will be a big resource sink for Moscow.

OTL had the Soviets supplying arms to the insurgents against Rhodesia, the Biafran War, Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau.

 

[Monk78]

I was thinking the Soviets had a presence in South Yemen, Somalia, and Eritrea, perhaps they could put a naval base in those regions. Not sure how but this will be a big resource sink for Moscow.

OTL had the Soviets supplying arms to the insurgents against Rhodesia, the Biafran War, Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau.

Agreed only way it would pay off is if the all of the Congo region is committed to the Soviet bloc along with Angola.
They can atleast avoid the destructive Civil War there of the 1970s and 80s and exploit the minerals of both African giants

 

[Gillan1220]

Agreed only way it would pay off is if the hall of the Zaire region is committed in the Soviet bloc along with Angola.
They can atleast avoid the destructive Civil War there of the 1970s and 80s and exploit the minerals of both African giants

OTL also had the Soviets as "advisors" in Angola and the South African Border War. Perhaps if Angola allowed the Soviets to have bases, from there Moscow could provide weapons and other forms of support to Zaire.

 

[Gunnarnz]

OTL had the Soviets supplying arms to the insurgents against Rhodesia, the Biafran War, Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau.

The Soviets had "fraternal socialist allies" all over the place. It wasn't all that hard for them to make themselves popular - a shipload of AK-47s, RPGs, and maybe some mortars are about all a "national liberation movement" need, and the Soviets had buckets of those things lying around. And a T-34 might be ridiculously obsolete in Europe, but in Africa it's an unstoppable terror until the UN show up (and even then, given what some of the peacekeepers used to be like).

 

[Monk78]

The Soviets had "fraternal socialist allies" all over the place. It wasn't all that hard for them to make themselves popular - a shipload of AK-47s, RPGs, and maybe some mortars are about all a "national liberation movement" need, and the Soviets had buckets of those things lying around. And a T-34 might be ridiculously obsolete in Europe, but in Africa it's an unstoppable terror until the UN show up (and even then, given what some of the peacekeepers used to be like).

But despite all this Soviets fail to secure major states as Allies.
I’m hoping see how we can change that

 

[Gunnarnz]

But despite all this Soviets fail to secure major states as Allies.
I’m hoping see how we can change that

I don't think they wanted to. Their African adventures were all about annoying and inconveniencing the West or the West's proxies at as little cost to themselves as possible. An old freighter full of AKs and 7.62x39mm rounds was cheap, and caused the West no end of trouble. Even if they could get dedicated allies out of it, how much benefit would there really be to the Soviets from doing so?

 

[Monk78]

I don't think they wanted to. Their African adventures were all about annoying and inconveniencing the West or the West's proxies at as little cost to themselves as possible. An old freighter full of AKs and 7.62x39mm rounds was cheap, and caused the West no end of trouble. Even if they could get dedicated allies out of it, how much benefit would there really be to the Soviets from doing so?

If I’m in the politburo I would want a couple of Gaddafi like guys in sub Saharan Africa ( rich , reckless and ruthless )
Major headaches for NATO simply by supporting anti western forces all over the globe and sabotaging trade all over Africa for western Allies

 

[Gillan1220]

The Soviets had "fraternal socialist allies" all over the place. It wasn't all that hard for them to make themselves popular - aa shipload of AK-47s, RPGs, and maybe some mortars are about all a "national liberation movement" need, and the Soviets had buckets of those things lying around. And a T-34 might be ridiculously obsolete in Europe, but in Africa it's an unstoppable terror until the UN show up (and even then, given what some of the peacekeepers used to be like).

That explains why the continent was awash with Soviet weapons and equipment. Actually, the T-34 would be a very easy target for RPGs or Alouette helicopter gunships. It will also have a difficult time traversing through the jungles.

But despite all this Soviets fail to secure major states as Allies.
I’m hoping see how we can change that

What about the Soviets managing to establish permanent outposts in Angola, Somalia, and Eritrea?

I don't think they wanted to. Their African adventures were all about annoying and inconveniencing the West or the West's proxies at as little cost to themselves as possible. An old freighter full of AKs and 7.62x39mm rounds was cheap, and caused the West no end of trouble. Even if they could get dedicated allies out of it, how much benefit would there really be to the Soviets from doing so?

This I agree. The Soviets just wanted to undermine Western influence wherever they could, be it in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. Africa was a goldmine for undermining the West as there were a lot of independence movements going on in the former European colonies. It is also why China also sent their support to many African independence movements since they criticized the Soviets for "Socialist imperialism" as stated by my friend @Sunny. Since the 1970s and 1980s, both the U.S. and China saw the same side in supporting the anti-Soviet factions in Africa.

That's why we see a lot of Norinco Type 56 assault rifles (the Chinese copy of the AK-47; it can be easily identified with its round hooded front sight) in most African rebels and modern armies today. Most of African militaries also used Chinese APCs and helicopters.

If I’m in the politburo I would want a couple of Gaddafi like guys in sub Saharan Africa ( rich , reckless and ruthless )
Major headaches for NATO simply by supporting anti western forces all over the globe and sabotaging trade all over Africa for western Allies

Yeah, Gaddafi was definitely Moscow's hand in Africa. In fact, they could use Gaddafi to funnel arms and weapons deeper into the continent.

 

[Eldritch Po l i t b u ro]

If Congo, Brazil, and Indonesia had all gone to the Soviet bloc in the 1960s, the Cold War could've gone in a completely different direction, with each of those regionally key states likely contributing to the further spread of socialist/ socialist-ic regimes in their respective neighborhoods. Each of the three was possible, and any one of them could've proven significiant given the amount of resources and population at stake, not to mention the cascade of knock on effects geopolitically, militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc. Had two or all three gone red, there would've been a wildly different kind of mid-late Cold War period, possibly even impacting the result or wether it ended at all (detente vascilations, either side imploding, etc.)

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

What is the most optimistic outlook on soviet influence in Africa ? Not counting the North African Arab speaking nations

Timeline is 1960-1990

What measures can Soviets adopt to maximize their potential in Africa , which players or forces to back ? What are the critical countries to secure ? How can their Allies help them the most ?

Lumumba initially follows a moderate, pro-business policy and good relations with Belgium, managing to crush Katanga and South Kasai by 1965, only to shift to the left during the Vietnam War.

If Congo, Brazil, and Indonesia had all gone to the Soviet bloc in the 1960s, the Cold War could've gone in a completely different direction, with each of those regionally key states likely contributing to the further spread of socialist/ socialist-ic regimes in their respective neighborhoods. Each of the three was possible, and any one of them could've proven significiant given the amount of resources and population at stake, not to mention the cascade of knock on effects geopolitically, militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc. Had two or all three gone red, there would've been a wildly different kind of mid-late Cold War period, possibly even impacting the result or wether it ended at all (detente vascilations, either side imploding, etc.)

I have a SI timeline where Brazil goes socialist in the 1960s.

 

[Gillan1220]

If Congo, Brazil, and Indonesia had all gone to the Soviet bloc in the 1960s, the Cold War could've gone in a completely different direction, with each of those regionally key states likely contributing to the further spread of socialist/ socialist-ic regimes in their respective neighborhoods. Each of the three was possible, and any one of them could've proven significiant given the amount of resources and population at stake, not to mention the cascade of knock on effects geopolitically, militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc. Had two or all three gone red, there would've been a wildly different kind of mid-late Cold War period, possibly even impacting the result or wether it ended at all (detente vascilations, either side imploding, etc.)

Yeah the Congo was close to turning red hence the UN got involved.

If Brazil turned red, it might invoke the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. already lost Cuba to communism so losing Brazil which is a big country in the Western Hemisphere would be unacceptable.

As for Indonesia, it was unacceptable for the U.S., Britain, and Australia for to fall red. Too close for comfort and could be used a springboard to destabilize region. Hence, the British were efficient in ending the Malayan Emergency. The Philippines at this period just ended their Huk Insurgency but had to face the prospect of the CPP launching another insurgency through the New People's Army.

 

[Monk78]

Nigeria Biafra war is another chance to create rifts between west and Nigeria


Another option is to covertly support Rhodesia against Chinese backed African nationalists while letting soviet backed factions be neutral to ensure PRC influence is squashed

 

[Gillan1220]

Nigeria Biafra war is another chance to create rifts between west and Nigeria


Another option is to covertly support Rhodesia against Chinese backed African nationalists while letting soviet backed factions be neutral to ensure PRC influence is squashed

An interesting scenario is what if Nigeria split and remains divided to this day similar to North and South Korea.

 

[peeter]

My answer is very vague and not realistic but soviets are much better prepared for Barbarossa by having the molotov line complete by the time the nazis invade. With a better soviet performance Stalin feels more ambitious about influencing things outside of europe and starts soviet involvement in africa in the late 40s

 

[Monk78]

Esp after the sino US rapprochement in early 70s, Soviets can pull a diplomatic coup by mending fences with South Africa and Taiwan

 

[durante]

Esp after the sino US rapprochement in early 70s, Soviets can pull a diplomatic coup by mending fences with South Africa and Taiwan

mending fences with Apartheid South Africa is a surefire way to sink any and all influence in the rest of Africa.

IIRC, Cuba was very enthusiastic about spreading the revolution in Africa, but was actively dissuaded from further involvements by the Soviets. The Soviets don't need to provide troops, just funding, and Afro-Cubans will do most of the proxy fighting.