Assuming that the Soviet Union collapses in 1945...

For a moment, assume that, for whatever reason, the Soviet Union collapses in 1945, in the aftermath of the end of the war (take your own pick as to why--US and UK fight it out with the USSR, toppling the government after some misunderstanding on the front; the nation as a whole simply collapses as a result of a harsher war and an over extension of its resources, etc.). How does the rest of the 20th Century turn out without a Cold War?

A few questions for discussion--

1. What kind of government is set up in post-Soviet Russia? How do the Allies strengthen and maintain that government, etc.? Is Russia occupied, divided between US, UK, French, etc. zones?

2. How would this effect the Chinese Civil War? Will the CPC be able to hold its ground in China without Soviet aid? If so, would the Allies be more willing to commit troops to keep the KMT in power in China?

3. How does economic development and decolonization proceed? Does an alternate Cold War breakout between the United States and United Kingdom over de-colonization? Or is there generally peace among the world's powers?

4. How does the United Nations develop without the pressures of the Cold War? For that matter, does man make it a goal to go into space, or to the Moon?

5. How are the various' nation's domestic politics altered? I assume that the Republicans will remain isolationist in the United States without a clear external threat, while the Democrats will probably continue on as the party of humanitarian intervention. What about the Tories and Labour? How will politics develop in post-Soviet Russia?
 
An attempt to answer your questions.
1) It depends on how Soviet falls. An outright occupation in 1945 after a military defeat of soviet troops is very unlikely because Soviet would be hard to defeat in the field within a single year and the Allies have not that much resources to occupy Japan, Germany, Italy and the whole soviet union. The more plausible reason for Soviet to fall in 1945 is by implosion or power struggle. The manpower reserve is taped, a majority of the country is in ruins and the party control of the country is weakened by a strong red army. A coup or accident that kills Stalin that is followed by counter coups that kills the leadership of both the party and the red army (and the intelligentsia) and spiral into civil war will produce a leadership that's hard to predict. The only thing that is easy to predict is it will not be pleasant for the Soviet population. I'm going to assume that a power vacuum ensues after Japan surrenders whit a POD of Stalin's death leading to a severe power struggle that brings Soviet to a collapse that is turned in to breakdown of the soviet union into about the same amount of states as IOTL 1991 collapse. All European parts is becoming liberal democratic nations and aided by the marshal plan and included in the Breton woods system. A virtual Utopia that is.

2) yes the CPC will hold ground against the KMT because the KMT is to corrupt and incompetent to not lose ground to the CPC forces. The lack of support for the CPC is going to be countered by the diminished support for the KMT, whit no Soviet union around there is no need to prop up the KMT whit aid that KMT leaders is going to steal anyway. The aid that went from USA to KMT is probably going to be needed in Europe anyway.

3) UK/France can't afford its empire and it knows it. UK/France is not going to bit the hand that's feeds them and USA is not going to piss UK/France off to aid some squabbling Africans/Asians that seeks independence. it is a harsh reality but whit no need to play the cold war game in the world and USA can go back to be a sleeping giant again. Whit the Central and East European countries democratic and free and aided by the Breton woods system (and marshal aid) economic development in Europe is going to be even brighter. Korea and Germany united by the Soviet collapse is going to blossom as democratic nations (and Korea doing a Japan in the same span as Japan). Whit less resources in the world spent on military equipment more is spent on social benefits. education and poverty reduction (popular things in the future optimistic 50is and 60is). The extra resources to lift the fellow man out of poverty, illiteracy and diseases is going to make life in the colonies a lot more pleasant, easing the pressure of independence. USA might even talk Europe into letting a UN program run the decolonization future making the world into a liberal democratic utopia.

4) UN is a powerful idea that the war ravaged world needed as a symbol of hope and peace, and the nations of the world does need to solve some of their problems thru diplomacy instead of war. Actually whiteout the cold war UN might turn into what optimists hoped UN would turn into, a supranational parliament. In time and whiteout competing superpowers that is. Sadly space is going to be explored by joint research efforts (maybe under UN care) because the need of military rockets and national pride is not that great to launch a race to the moon. Private entrepreneurs might start competitions to launch a man into space, achieving the goal of the first man in space by the 90is. But mostly the research community is going to explore the solar system whit satellites launched from earth.

5) The largest alteration in the worlds domestic politics is going to be the lack of a credible alternative to liberal democratic capitalism. The Soviet union collapsed and exposed all its dirty little secrets (and atrocities) as a brook commando economy that couldn't feed and clothe its population. Any social democratic party in Europe (and Labor) is going to be freed by the competition from the communists and could afford to be less nationalistic and more internationalist. And right there it is a ton of butterflies as the social democratic welfare state is put against the Liberal welfare state as the only alternatives for the voters (the communist utopia is broke and gone as the pipe dream it were).
 
From what I've heard the USSR supported the KMT, not the CPC.

Yes, the Soviets aided the KMT pre-WW2. After that the Soviets got consumed with Operation Barbarossa and the USA and Britain got involved in aiding the KMT. The Soviets aided the KMT because they needed someone to keep the Japanese busy, and the CPC wasn't strong enough. After the war, when the Japanese were gone and it became a question of whether the KMT or CPC would rule China. The Soviets opted for the CPC and the US went for the KMT.

Anyway, back to the original question:

1. The US and UK may set up a Liberal Democratic Government is Russia and let it take care of its own affairs, while the US and UK fix up the rest of Europe. Although whether the US would do a Marshall Plan is debatable. Originally the US waited well into the late 40's to start the Marshall Plan and that was to stop the spread of Communism and Soviet Influence in economically screwed Europe. TTL's USA may find no need in giving so much money freely to European nations and keeps it in the US.

2. It is hard to say. Like stjernkjempe said there isn't the need to prop up the KMT due to other demands and not to stop the USSR from developing an ally in China. Then again, the evils of Communism are exposed in full view when the USSR fails and then there may be a large demand to prevent new Communist Nations from forming. Still, the CPC may do well but the KMT still run a chance of keeping all of Southern areas of China.

3. The British and French knew not to bite the hand that fed them. The British will have a larger problem in that they will have a much larger section of Germany to occupy. The British and French still won't have the funds to maintain their empires and all of their Colonies will become Independent, but hopefully in a more competent way. The US wasn't also going to really piss off the British and French over a few colonial holdings. The Europeans knew the days of Empire were gone and they were going to have give it up.

4. Presumably private companies will come to the forefront. The nationalistic demands of the Cold War will not be there and there will be no "Space Race".

5. The US wanted to go back to being the sleeping giant originally, but when China fell to the CPC, the Soviets blockaded Berlin, and North Korea invaded the South that was killed off. The US would likely return to being an Isolationist power.
 
1. The US and UK may set up a Liberal Democratic Government is Russia and let it take care of its own affairs, while the US and UK fix up the rest of Europe. Although whether the US would do a Marshall Plan is debatable. Originally the US waited well into the late 40's to start the Marshall Plan and that was to stop the spread of Communism and Soviet Influence in economically screwed Europe. TTL's USA may find no need in giving so much money freely to European nations and keeps it in the US.

It actually a very selfish reason USA aided Europe. The marshal plan might have been to prevent spread of communism but the Breton Woods system (the real help Europe got) were all selfish to recreate a market for American goods and trade. It would also hinder and stop market failure in the scale of the great depression. The works of the European reconstruction is laid down before the war and during the war of economics like Keynes and Harry Dexter White. The new economic plan to rebuild Europe and so forth were laid down and agreed upon 1944. The marshal plan were only gravy on the 3 course meal paid by uncle Sam.
 
It actually a very selfish reason USA aided Europe. The marshal plan might have been to prevent spread of communism but the Breton Woods system (the real help Europe got) were all selfish to recreate a market for American goods and trade. .

I'd call it "enlightened self-interest" rather than selfishness. After all, Europe's economies benefitted a great deal from the Marshall Plan and the economic framework created: without it, much of Europe might have ended up looking like Latin America for quite a while.

Bruce
 
Note that US/UK invasion or nuking of USSR 1945 is ASB. If USSR collapses in 1945, it will be because it had a much worse war, which means the Germans are doing much better in the east: there will be more troops and resources available for the western front, which in turn means D-day and what comes after will be harder. Quite likely Germany has not fallen yet when the atom bomb becomes available and WII in Europe ends with the nuking of Berlin and other German cities. Japan will keep fighting longer since the limited US bomb supply will be used up in Germany and the USSR is no longer available to invade Korea and Manchuria (reports of US atomic attacks on Germany will be dismissed as propaganda).

Soviet death toll will be even worse than OTL. With the purges of the 30s and the fact that conservative nationalists served on the German side, a return to power of the Whites or their equivalent seems most unlikely: the power struggle will mainly be between different types of leftists and nationalists. The US and UK are unlikely to stick their nose into the resultant wasps nest until the situation "clarifies" a bit and they find a strong contender to back. [1] The most likely outcome strikes me as being a lefty but Great Russian-nationalist military regime. (Greater Syria? :D ). The US might or might not recognize an independent Ukranian regime: they might be seen as German collaborators, or there may be too few Ukranians left alive after a mostly undistrurbed 4-year German occupation to make up a quorum. In any event, Poland gets it's pre-war eastern border back.

Germany may have a harder time this TL: there is no Soviet Union to throw Germans into the arms of, no Soviet Germany (that's probably going to be the Polish occupation zone), the argument that Germany is necessary for the continent's good economic health is going to get less traction, and the Poles and Czechs are going to be _implacably_ hostile to a revived Germany. A full blown Morgenthau plan may not be implemented, but Germany probably remains under military occupation rather longer than OTL.

Yugoslavia, Albania, and Greece had powerful indigenous communist movements: they may well go Red _without_ the aid of the Soviet army. What happens to International Communism in a world where the Communist internationale consists of Mongolia, China, Yugoslavia, and Albania?

Oh, more dead Jews. The Holocaust stopped when the Red Army moved in: with the Soviets never driving the Germans from their territory, the killing in the east goes on longer, probably even after Berlin is nuked as Germans hurry to kill off witnesses.

Bruce

[1] Worst-case scenario: the US finds a right-winger they like but which has no popular support, and US arms and supplies keep the Soviet civil war going for years
 
Couple more thoughts:

since the US is unlikely to _occupy_ the USSR, there's not going to be any "exposal" of Commie badness: too many people in whatever government will have dirty hands to be too open about the badness of the previous system. Stalin may be castigated as the betrayer of the Revolution, but it's too early to junk the Revolution itself. The USSR will be seen as being wrecked by Germans (and Stalin's military purges), not by the inevitable FAIL of Communism.

Of course, whatever government emerges post-war will probably not be Stalinist and probably will be less of a Command economy: the human losses under Stalin and then the Germans were too awful for any new regime to take up a method of production involving working millions of people to death and starving millions war to break popular resistance.

It will almost certainly be a dictatorship, but it may range from Vietnam-Red to Egypt-Pink in its economics, and will probably be too busy in its immediate backyard (even if it decides reconquering south central Asia is more trouble than its worth, the Caucuses and Kazakhistan are going to be major zones of interest) to interfere in European or middle Eastern affairs. It may be a decade or more before Russia reemerges on the world stage. It will be in some ways relatively a bit better off than the former USSR in the 90s, though: the mostly peasant population will still have good demographics, and the horrendous environmental damage accumulated OTL over the next 40 years will not be there. A drift into Russian-nationalist fascism is not impossible in the long run.

The US probably remains engaged to some extent in Asia: there's still the Phillipines, the US is occupying Japan, and the US has always had a sense of the Pacific as it's "back yard": if China goes Red on its own, which seems quite likely, there will probably be substantial political blow-back. No McCarthy era panic (no Soviet nukes), but there will be much political finger-pointing and careers will be ruined. The US might well maintain a military presence in the area and support French efforts to retain control of Vietnam, lest it go Red. Less fear of the Red Menance, but perhaps a bit more Yellow Peril-mongering? Or does China simply not look that menacing on its own, without the Soviet backing of 1949-1960-something?

Speaking of nukes, there will be rather less of a push for them in an unthreatened western Europe, and French and British efforts will probably be delayed. Wthout an arms race, nuclear arsenals probably remain small (atom bombs aren't cheap): will the idealist calls to put atomic weapons under UN control actually gain some traction in this TL?

Bruce
 
since the US is unlikely to _occupy_ the USSR, there's not going to be any "exposal" of Commie badness: too many people in whatever government will have dirty hands to be too open about the badness of the previous system. Stalin may be castigated as the betrayer of the Revolution, but it's too early to junk the Revolution itself. The USSR will be seen as being wrecked by Germans (and Stalin's military purges), not by the inevitable FAIL of Communism.

That's a really good point.

Or does China simply not look that menacing on its own, without the Soviet backing of 1949-1960-something?

I would say so. China after its civil war will be in pretty bad shape, and without Soviet aid to help get back on its feet, there won't be much they can do to threaten the rest of the world. I would wonder if, without a Soviet benefactor, a newly communist China might not cut itself off from the rest of the world so quickly and completely. Certainly there'd be a lot of nationalist anti-western resentment in China, but they would need to have some allies in order to survive.
 
Top