Competently led Soviets receive Barbarossa

[Deleted member 1487]

What references to the atomic bomb? I don't recall any, although the lack of paragraphs makes reading more difficult.

Also, by "fewer machine tools but more Ukrainians," I'm talking about finding a happy balance so to speak. TTL still has collective farming despite the lack of OTL's horrors--there's still a surplus that can be extracted for export to fund industrialization.

Plus less totalitarianism might mean more efficiency, as people are more willing to speak up about problems without fearing of being branded a saboteur or accidentally setting off a witch hunt.

And someone who in OTL ended up in a gulag because of an opportunistic accusation in TTL might make some invention or improved process that leads to improvements elsewhere.

I envision a SU still beset with the many problems of a command economy, whose industrial development is, say, 80% of that achieved OTL under Stalinism, while the population is up to ten million higher thanks to the very reduced extent of the abortive collectivization and the falling rate or repression. As for agriculture, I assume that 1913 production will be reached again around 1935, but still not neatly overcome by the start of the war due to late and insufficient mechanization/chemicalization. Hunger is a spectre and a concern, but no mass death by starvation is seen after 1930 (mostly in the Kazakh steppe).
The army is at first about 70% the physical strength of 1941 Red Army, as for tanks and aircraft (whose rate of elimination of obsolete models is somewhat quicker); it has as said more manpower, and marginally better mobility, due to a better focus on truck and jeep production. Still tanks have no radio communication, aprt experimental units; nor have aircraft. The concepts about radar have been grasped but not developed/stolen yet. Quietly, physicist in February 1941 informed the Kremlin about the theoretical possibility of bomb of immense power employing uranium... whose mineral sources are almost unknown of at the time in the SU.

There was the nuclear reference.

The major part of the problem is the vagueness about Soviet leadership. Who is in charge? Someone who didn't survive OTL?
That would be critical to determining how things would play about with industrialization, the gulags, or collectivization. Frankly, any sort of collectivization would result in protests, such as the slaughtering of animals so that the meat could not be taken by the government. Collectivization was a major part of the food crisis, as the farmers did not want to collectivize. Food production went down, just as industrialization reduced farmers working in the fields and increased work increased calorie needs. Even here collectivation, which would have to be forced, would result in food shortages. Some people would die, but not nearly as many as OTL. One cannot force people to do something they did not want to do and not expect horrors. They wouldn't be as bad, not they wouldn't be good either. Now exports would be out of the question. Plus industrialization was not 'funded' as the Soviets had an autarkic economy. Stalin shut off the economy from the world to insulate it from the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, especially if Stalin is around and in charge of TTL's industrialization with breaks on his power, the abuses would still happen. The thing is the Russians did not want to do much of what they were forced into. Without the stick, they won't willingly do what the government wanted, which is why the NEP was necessary. It is a command economy and requires some sort of consequence for not listening to commands. The Gulag was critical part of the system for Stalin-levels of industrialization, as the population would not have gone along with Industrialization and Collectivization without force. People were forced into training programs and moved around the country to work in various projects the government demanded. Without consequences who would willingly do what they are ordered to do?

Repealing the NEP will prevent capitalistic, efficient industrialization. Its a command economy that will require forced industrialization, because the incentive has been removed. Its only negative reinforcement that got things done in the USSR (at this time).

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Soviets exported grain to raise the capital for industrialization. I remember reading about how ships from Hamburg carrying grain to assist famine victims in Russia passed ships carrying exported grain from Russia.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Soviets exported grain to raise the capital for industrialization. I remember reading about how ships from Hamburg carrying grain to assist famine victims in Russia passed ships carrying exported grain from Russia.

Recall the book?
Of course not all trade was cut off, because foreign capital was needed to buy western, modern goods/machines. But the volume was so low as to prevent the Depression from spreading into the USSR. It already had effectively been cut off of the world economy by the Civil War and subsequent economic embargoes.
If the Soviets try and export grain (which OTL they did in the 70's and then got US aid to shore up the deficit), they will end up like under Stalin: starving people to support industrialization.

 

[basileus]

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/collect.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927–1953)#Planning








No, I don't think the Holodomor was necessary to defeat Hitler either, but the reason the grain was taken in the amounts that were was because of the amount of industrialization done during this period. Stalin could have either let his cities starve or let the Ukrainians starve. That is a testament to the numbers of farmers taken from their jobs in the fields to work in various industry supportive roles (building factories, machining, mining, etc.).

So if the Holodomor doesn't happen its because of the lack of effort ITTL vs. Stalin's OTL push. That's not to say that Stalin's was well organized or the most effective way to go about doing things, but it resulted in vast gains in production that would not have been achievable without Stalin's methods.

So in reality I'd say that instead of Basileus's figure of 80% ITTL industry would only be at about 60% of OTL if that. Now to reach 80% there would have to be harsh, repressive measures that would reach some of Stalin's levels of brutality, but leave the worst aspects of it out. ITTL the OP suggests there would be none of these measures, which means there would only be about 2/3's at very best of the industrialization that Stalin achieved, but that would only be reached in 1940, meaning the production leading up to war would be significantly lower than OTL's levels. So the Red Army would be sorely lacking in tanks, artillery, and aircraft versus OTL. Also the KVs and T34s wouldn't really be in production yet, or if they were it would only be in very small numbers, smaller than OTL, making them far less numerous until late in the war.

Not only that, but the lack of experience running a war economy, which was gained by Stalin's pre-war economic plan OTL, would not have happened, so there would be major dislocations in production as new experiments in organizing vast increases in productions would have to be conducted DURING the war, instead of before it. Also the Soviets would have a much smaller experienced workforce, meaning more troops for the front, but again very little in the way of production versus OTL. The lack of production due to low pools of experienced workers (again vs. OTL), lack of industry vs OTL (and the potential of needing to build more factories with and for inexperienced workers ITTL), as well as the experience at the front of not having the T34 in numbers or really any major armored, air, or artillery force, at least compared to OTL, would have an important effect on the war.

As well led (relative to OTL, as ITTL the Soviets won't have any combat experience at ALL) as the USSR would be and as better organized vs. OTL as it would be, the Soviets are actually worse off in many ways that would prove to be much more important as the war grinds on. Sure they won't lose as much territory as quickly (potentially...that is not a given even here), but they won't be able to counterattack. It would also help the Germans, as they would be more in supply, Hitler would take the war more seriously, Winter effects would be much more mitigated by the better supply and more shallow penetration, which the Soviets lose lots more men thanks to the infantry bias their army has. It would be bloody, as human wave attacks without sufficient artillery, aircraft, and tanks against experienced attacks with all of the above proved OTL.
Plus if the Ukraine is lost it would be much worse than OTL, because the increased population needs to be fed, not to mention the important industrial and mining areas of the Donetz Basin would be devestating. OTL the Soviets under Stalin vastly improved their other sources of minerals, but here, without the vast push to develop these, the Donetz will be a more critical resource (it was the best source of high quality iron and coal in the Soviet Union and potentially in Europe. Developing other sources in the Urals won't be as necessary without as much industry or willingness to sacrifice. Why waste lives developing other sources when there is this easily accessible, high quality source right in the heartland?), which will be more painful to lose.

So no, at least in the OPs scenario the Soviets would not really be better off. In fact the OP is ignoring what Stalin actually did and assumes that nearly the same results were achievable without all the bloodshed that Stalin committed. While I agree that there are scenarios that would get the OP the results he is looking for, this POD is not the one. This will not get the OP the Soviet-wank that he is looking for. The talk about the atom bomb is the last post was a dead give-away. The Soviets especially did not have the R&D for that before the 50's mainly even then because they stole the research the Brits and US had already done!

While my idea of a somewhat "softer" Soviet Russia may be overly idealistic, it seems that your vision of it is blurred by ideological prejudice ("Russians won't work unless whipped", "only Stalin's ruthlessness could obtain these results" etc.). Some of the same choices made under Stalin would be made also under Kirov, secretary of the party and president of the council of ministers, and his collective trojka government including Kamenev, Zinovev, Bukharin, Trotsky and Stalin (ITTL still archenemies but not to the point of killing each other)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

While my idea of a somewhat "softer" Soviet Russia may be overly idealistic, it seems that your vision of it is blurred by ideological prejudice ("Russians won't work unless whipped", "only Stalin's ruthlessness could obtain these results" etc.). Some of the same choices made under Stalin would be made also under Kirov, secretary of the party and president of the council of ministers, and his collective trojka government including Kamenev, Zinovev, Bukharin, Trotsky and Stalin (ITTL still archenemies but not to the point of killing each other)

You misunderstand my motivations. I never said or meant to imply that ONLY Russians would work under threat of violence. In the Communist system in Russia under Lenin it was proven that the NEP, which allowed a profit motive, was the only way to get the people (and I contend any society) to operate in a manner deemed productive by the state. For the kind of industrialization achieved under Stalin, only violence and coercion could achieve it. Profit motives could as well, but that was not the Soviet way, and even then I question whether Capitalism could achieve was Stalin did.
The other issue is the competence of administrators that the USSR produced. There would be incompetence in the process, as the experienced administrators all fled with the Whites. Even under the Czar industrialization was very incompetently handled.
Even if violence wasn't the means the USSR intended to industrialize, incompetence, which was an important factor even OTL, would result in deaths. The scale, especially as a result of food production, would not be inconsequential.
What I'm saying is that with some similar methods and means, similar body counts would result. Similar personalities would mismanage, similar goals would produce problems. Deaths would result. The higher you push industrialization goals, the higher the death count would result. Save millions of Ukrainians? Pay in industrial capacity. Its not a one-to-one correlation of course, but to achieve Stalin levels of industrialization in the same time frame would mean using similar methods, with a similar result. A 'softer' industrialization would still involve coercion to move people from farming into other industry related professions, because increased pay was not used to lure people from their villages. It would still involve needing to boost farm output to compensate for moving people from agriculture, which means collectivization, which was hated and resisted through various means that generally lowered output relative to individual plot production. So there will need to be some similarities regardless, which will result in a number of deaths. Fewer than OTL to be sure if the government is trying to avoid mass death, but that would result in slowed industrialization. I'm not saying that Stalin-levels would not be reached at some point, but by the time WW2 starts for the Soviets, they sure as hell wouldn't be at Stalin-levels without Stalin methods and scale of goals.

 

[basileus]

You misunderstand my motivations. I never said or meant to imply that ONLY Russians would work under threat of violence. In the Communist system in Russia under Lenin it was proven that the NEP, which allowed a profit motive, was the only way to get the people (and I contend any society) to operate in a manner deemed productive by the state. For the kind of industrialization achieved under Stalin, only violence and coercion could achieve it. Profit motives could as well, but that was not the Soviet way, and even then I question whether Capitalism could achieve was Stalin did.
The other issue is the competence of administrators that the USSR produced. There would be incompetence in the process, as the experienced administrators all fled with the Whites. Even under the Czar industrialization was very incompetently handled.
Even if violence wasn't the means the USSR intended to industrialize, incompetence, which was an important factor even OTL, would result in deaths. The scale, especially as a result of food production, would not be inconsequential.
What I'm saying is that with some similar methods and means, similar body counts would result. Similar personalities would mismanage, similar goals would produce problems. Deaths would result. The higher you push industrialization goals, the higher the death count would result. Save millions of Ukrainians? Pay in industrial capacity. Its not a one-to-one correlation of course, but to achieve Stalin levels of industrialization in the same time frame would mean using similar methods, with a similar result. A 'softer' industrialization would still involve coercion to move people from farming into other industry related professions, because increased pay was not used to lure people from their villages. It would still involve needing to boost farm output to compensate for moving people from agriculture, which means collectivization, which was hated and resisted through various means that generally lowered output relative to individual plot production. So there will need to be some similarities regardless, which will result in a number of deaths. Fewer than OTL to be sure if the government is trying to avoid mass death, but that would result in slowed industrialization. I'm not saying that Stalin-levels would not be reached at some point, but by the time WW2 starts for the Soviets, they sure as hell wouldn't be at Stalin-levels without Stalin methods and scale of goals.

I wrote that industrialization would not be at that same level, and that TTL's Red Army would have no more than 70-75% of the tanks and aircraft of OTL, while having even more manpower.
I assume a reluctant about-turn and de facto "re-NEP" from 1930 onwards, allowing for the survival of the kulaks in the countyside and of the little middlemen and minor employers in the towns and cities. The State owns all the rest. The industry would developed less, but with better overall efficiency, thanks to contribution especially from the US, with a regular yearly influx of some thousands of sympathizing immigrants from north America and Europe (not to end up mostly in Gulag or six feet under, as per OTL), often specialized workers and technicians.
Conditions would still be harsh for many, but I'm confident a good level of industrialization ould still be attained without extensive collectivization, massa slavery, starvation and forced deportation of peasants and such amenities.
I also consider that the Dalstroy would however make use also of condemned criminals/nationalists for forced labor in the Kolyma to dig up gold; but in a mixup with free settlers, de facto "indentured" for some years (say five to ten) and allowed to keep a part of what their mining group obained/discovered as a personal gain apart their (relatively high) wage. Stick and carrot.
As for the grain, assuming no collectivization disaster, production will be higher than OTL, if hampered by a relative lack of mechanization; a certain amount of it could be still exported; for timber the same discourse as gold can be made.

How this would allow for a SU able to resist the Nazi onslaught is difficult to say. Either you belong to the party that ist was due uniquely to sheer numbers, but what the Soviets sacrificed OTL in their desperate defence and ill-fated counteroffensives, were mostly men, human flesh, rather than machines, in the first couple years, despite losing impressive numbers of tanks and aircraft. But it is a well known fact that tanks were used horribly because incompetents as Kulik of Budenny had more leverage than competent commanders as Rokossovsky, not to say the deceased Tukhachevsky, then ITTL is the Joint Chief of Staff of the Red Army and forms part of the leading trojka of the Stavka with Kirov and Trotsky.Plus they were too ahed into the border area of recently occupied Poland, which proved an immense catastrophe; while I assume that the more suspicious Tukhachevsky would have organized them in mechanized corps, at a distance from the frontier. For the aircraft, they would be dispersed by maskirovka, at least in an healthy percentage, in the days preceding the attack (Sorge and the British would be duly believed, this time, Kirov being not nearly as paranoid and mistrustful as Stalin).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I wrote that industrialization would not be at that same level, and that TTL's Red Army would have no more than 70-75% of the tanks and aircraft of OTL, while having even more manpower.
I assume a reluctant about-turn and de facto "re-NEP" from 1930 onwards, allowing for the survival of the kulaks in the countyside and of the little middlemen and minor employers in the towns and cities. The State owns all the rest. The industry would developed less, but with better overall efficiency, thanks to contribution especially from the US, with a regular yearly influx of some thousands of sympathizing immigrants from north America and Europe (not to end up mostly in Gulag or six feet under, as per OTL), often specialized workers and technicians.
Conditions would still be harsh for many, but I'm confident a good level of industrialization ould still be attained without extensive collectivization, massa slavery, starvation and forced deportation of peasants and such amenities.
I also consider that the Dalstroy would however make use also of condemned criminals/nationalists for forced labor in the Kolyma to dig up gold; but in a mixup with free settlers, de facto "indentured" for some years (say five to ten) and allowed to keep a part of what their mining group obained/discovered as a personal gain apart their (relatively high) wage. Stick and carrot.
As for the grain, assuming no collectivization disaster, production will be higher than OTL, if hampered by a relative lack of mechanization; a certain amount of it could be still exported; for timber the same discourse as gold can be made.

How this would allow for a SU able to resist the Nazi onslaught is difficult to say. Either you belong to the party that ist was due uniquely to sheer numbers, but what the Soviets sacrificed OTL in their desperate defence and ill-fated counteroffensives, were mostly men, human flesh, rather than machines, in the first couple years, despite losing impressive numbers of tanks and aircraft. But it is a well known fact that tanks were used horribly because incompetents as Kulik of Budenny had more leverage than competent commanders as Rokossovsky, not to say the deceased Tukhachevsky, then ITTL is the Joint Chief of Staff of the Red Army and forms part of the leading trojka of the Stavka with Kirov and Trotsky.Plus they were too ahed into the border area of recently occupied Poland, which proved an immense catastrophe; while I assume that the more suspicious Tukhachevsky would have organized them in mechanized corps, at a distance from the frontier. For the aircraft, they would be dispersed by maskirovka, at least in an healthy percentage, in the days preceding the attack (Sorge and the British would be duly believed, this time, Kirov being not nearly as paranoid and mistrustful as Stalin).

You can view things as you please. Would Khalin Gol still happen? Without Stalin exiling Zhukov, who would lead it? What about supporting the CCP? And how is the Red Army going to hold up without the critical experience gained in Finland? Remember none of the Soviets have had combat experience since the early 1920's, i.e. no modern experience with combined arms ops including tanks, trucks, and planes. Also there are still issues with the junior officer corp and NCOs (not a lot of the or truly competent), especially as they lack combat experience and will be facing a foe with tremendous experience, more firepower, and roughly equal numbers.

 

[basileus]

You can view things as you please. Would Khalin Gol still happen? Without Stalin exiling Zhukov, who would lead it? What about supporting the CCP? And how is the Red Army going to hold up without the critical experience gained in Finland? Remember none of the Soviets have had combat experience since the early 1920's, i.e. no modern experience with combined arms ops including tanks, trucks, and planes. Also there are still issues with the junior officer corp and NCOs (not a lot of the or truly competent), especially as they lack combat experience and will be facing a foe with tremendous experience, more firepower, and roughly equal numbers.

Khalkin-Gol? Clearly yes, and it would end up in a bloody draw, still enough to make the Japs think twice before heading North, and draw Soviet reserves to Siberia.
The experience not made in Finland is partly compensated by that made in Poland, in a fighting occupation (which costs the SU the formal breaking of diplomatic relations with France and Britain) emplying a couple weeks against obstinate Polish units. Here the lessons learned are not so much tactical, but logistical.
Plus, there's another thing to remember: in this senario of a strictly limited and tactical Soviet-Nazi "cooperation", there's negligible economic exchange. "Here" the Soviets are NOT going to feed Hitler's war machine with grain, oil, metals, rubber from east Asia etc. The Germans too may be weaker, in perspective: time works against them.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Khalkin-Gol? Clearly yes, and it would end up in a bloody draw, still enough to make the Japs think twice before heading North, and draw Soviet reserves to Siberia.
The experience not made in Finland is partly compensated by that made in Poland, in a fighting occupation (which costs the SU the formal breaking of diplomatic relations with France and Britain) emplying a couple weeks against obstinate Polish units. Here the lessons learned are not so much tactical, but logistical.
Plus, there's another thing to remember: in this senario of a strictly limited and tactical Soviet-Nazi "cooperation", there's negligible economic exchange. "Here" the Soviets are NOT going to feed Hitler's war machine with grain, oil, metals, rubber from east Asia etc. The Germans too may be weaker, in perspective: time works against them.

The lack of goods probably prevents the Germans from invading the USSR. They won't be able to and will have to focus on taking down the Brits to open Western markets.
Also why would Khalin Gol end as per OTL? Zhukov wouldn't be there; there would be far less tanks, planes, and trucks, so why are these deployed in the East, especially the very limited T34, which would be produced in smaller numbers than OTL; and, seeing as the major advantages the Soviets had were the first two points, why is it a given that history would play out the same???

 

[basileus]

The lack of goods probably prevents the Germans from invading the USSR. They won't be able to and will have to focus on taking down the Brits to open Western markets.
Also why would Khalin Gol end as per OTL? Zhukov wouldn't be there; there would be far less tanks, planes, and trucks, so why are these deployed in the East, especially the very limited T34, which would be produced in smaller numbers than OTL; and, seeing as the major advantages the Soviets had were the first two points, why is it a given that history would play out the same???

Because the Japanese attitude wouldn't change, they'd still be restless and aggressive imperialists, plus fiercely anti-Communist. I ca't see a different evoloution of the inenr workings of the USSR changing the basic characater of Imperial Japan, headed towards confrontation and disaster.
As for the weapons, I said a likely draw in Khalkin-Gol, in the sense that the Japanese wouldn't be able to press their claims, because of a lesser number, but not quality, of heavy weapons by the Soviet side (and Zhukov being in command elsewhere, a step behind in career due to no purges). OTL the Soviets won big, if at a high price.
As for the military experience of the Red Army, an invaluable one could be made by sending military adviser to China (both to Chiang and Mao) during tha phase of the forced cooperation between the archenemies against the Japanese invasion.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

There's a lot of assumptions in the above that might be wrong. For instance, leadership by the likes of Kamenev and Zinoviev might be even worse than Stalin in terms of preparedeness and initial military decisions. Or they might be a lot better. And they might react to the rise of Hitler in 1933 by an industrial buildup for military production even greater than that under Stalin. As to the Stalin-Hitler Pact, they might not make it at all but might persevere with Litvinov's collective security policy (or the equivalent) and join the Allies after Hitler invades Poland. We just don't know.

 

[Faralis]

If the germans rampage into russian as per OTL with PZ-IIIs and PZ-IV's as their main tanks against a mass of T-34s and a lesser number of the distressingly tough KV-1 with an officer corps that survived the Purges so would have a doctrine that would match the germans, as their 'deep battle' concept was VERY similar to Blitzkrieg, I can't remember who was reading who's notes but the ideas are nigh identical as far as I remember.

They did not copied nothing ... the concept was developed by the 2 of them, in the 20´s begining of the 30´s ... while the Germans could not have an armored corps they used to train in the SU ...

A Red Army doing a well organized, not panicked slow retreat would be an absolute nightmare for the Wermach ... they will loose an horrible number of troops ...

And a less radical SU could perfectly do not attack Finland ... not pissing the French and Brits ... too many butterflies, but Germany could find itself in a 2 front war since almost the beginning ...

 

[Sumeragi]

Khalkin-Gol? Clearly yes, and it would end up in a bloody draw, still enough to make the Japs think twice before heading North, and draw Soviet reserves to Siberia.

I would say a bloody draw would mean that the Northern Advance Faction would still have enough support in them to concentrate on fighting the USSR in the future. This would mean that Pearl Harbor is unlikely to happen, and with a bigger Japanese threat, Siberia would be holding up a lot more troops.

I would have to say we would need to construct a full-length timeline for this to work out. There are just too many butterflies for this to be a simple scenario.