Could the Soviet Union have collapsed in 1945?

Hunter W.

Banned
I read a thread from a little while ago "What if the USSR collapsed in 1945?"

I came to the conclusion that there is no reason for it to do so. That is why I have appealed to you to provide answers to why this individual implied it could have happened.
As such, I have some key questions about a post-war Europe without the Soviet Union.

  • Status of Poland's borders?
  • Russia, would it become a democracy?
  • Former Soviet states independence?
  • Königsberg question?
  • The state of Israel?
  • Romania and Bulgaria?
  • And perhaps most important of all: Moon Landing, nuclear development.
  • Russia's new head of state?
  • Korean peninsula?
 
Last edited:
Mutual bioweapons use could do the trick, especially if some of the nastier agricultural pestilence ls got used - like rinderpest.
 
Would say the Soviets either receive very minimal or no lend lease resulting in more Soviet casualties on the Eastern Front, with the Western Allies invading from Italy (potentially ending the war by two years at best) instead of Normandy (the latter effectively allowing the Soviets to swallow up much of Central / Eastern Europe). Have read accounts where the US in OTL was VERY generous on lend lease to the Soviets (at least compared to what the UK received), even allegedly extending towards giving classified info / etc on the Manhattan project and aiding (instead of at least trying to undermine) all of the Soviet war aims in conquering Central / Eastern Europe that meant the war lasted longer then it needed to.

Not sure what else would be needed to induced a post-war Soviet collapse in 1945.
 

Hunter W.

Banned
Would say the Soviets either receive very minimal or no lend lease resulting in more Soviet casualties on the Eastern Front, with the Western Allies invading from Italy (potentially ending the war by two years at best) instead of Normandy (the latter effectively allowing the Soviets to swallow up much of Central / Eastern Europe). Have read accounts where the US in OTL was VERY generous on lend lease to the Soviets (at least compared to what the UK received), even allegedly extending towards giving classified info / etc on the Manhattan project and aiding (instead of at least trying to undermine) all of the Soviet war aims in conquering Central / Eastern Europe that meant the war lasted longer then it needed to.

Not sure what else would be needed to induced a post-war Soviet collapse in 1945.

Interesting, I have read also the USSR had economic problems at the end of the war, which Stalin folded to and agreed to devalue the ruble.
 
Interesting, I have read also the USSR had economic problems at the end of the war, which Stalin folded to and agreed to devalue the ruble.
you think? I mean the nation was on total war footing, its western cities were destroyed, the lands in occupied were ruins.
collapse no. economic problems.. sure, in 1945. once the war was over and things started the rebuild it was simply a massive economic building project.

stalin lives 10 more years. then you could get something.
Khrushchev and Brezhnev early years were decent. I think at best you could accelerate by 10 years.

other than that the war goes worse at first for the soviets ( hard to fathom ) but it goes even worse. have the soviets fighting with out Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow.
 
Would say the Soviets either receive very minimal or no lend lease resulting in more Soviet casualties on the Eastern Front, with the Western Allies invading from Italy (potentially ending the war by two years at best) instead of Normandy (the latter effectively allowing the Soviets to swallow up much of Central / Eastern Europe). Have read accounts where the US in OTL was VERY generous on lend lease to the Soviets (at least compared to what the UK received), even allegedly extending towards giving classified info / etc on the Manhattan project and aiding (instead of at least trying to undermine) all of the Soviet war aims in conquering Central / Eastern Europe that meant the war lasted longer then it needed to.
How exactly would hindering the main opponent of Germany make the war end quicker? By the way, the UK received more Lend-Lease than the Soviet Union (three times more to be exact) and no information on the Manhattan project was shared with the Soviets, so perhaps you should check up how well you actually remember what you have read about WWII.
 
no information on the Manhattan project was shared with the Soviets, so perhaps you should check up how well you actually remember what you have read about WWII.

Is it your intent to butterfly away Klaus Fuchs, the Rosenbergs, David Greenglass and the other Soviet Agents in the Manhattan Project?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I read a thread from a little while ago "What if the USSR collapsed in 1945?"

I came to the conclusion that there is no reason for it to do so. That is why I have appealed to you to provide answers to why this individual implied it could have happened.

It could have happened had World War III broken out between the West and the Soviet Union had broken out in 1945. Indeed, the Soviet Union in 1945 appears to have been rather similar to the Germany of early 1918--specifically, a hegemon which controls a huge chunk of Europe but which is also severely exhausted.

As such, I have some key questions about a post-war Europe without the Soviet Union.

  • Status of Poland's borders?
The 1939 borders are probably restored in the East. As for the West, I am assuming that Poland gets the remainder of Upper Silesia, all of East Prussia, Danzig, and eastern Pomernia in addition to everything that it controlled in 1939.

  • Russia, would it become a democracy?
It might very well depend on how much the West is willing to both invest in Russia and engage with Russia.

  • Former Soviet states independence?
Probably Yes. :)

  • Königsberg question?
It probably goes to Poland.

  • The state of Israel?
  • Romania and Bulgaria?
Probably the same outcomes in our TL for all of these. However, Israel's post-war borders might be a bit different depending on just how much aid it gets during its War of Independence in this TL.

  • And perhaps most important of all: Moon Landing, nuclear development.
Probably delayed at least by a decade or two.

  • Russia's new head of state?
Probably some prominent Russian exile who returns to Russia and who is in favor with the West.

  • Korean peninsula?

No partition; rather, Korea becomes one unified, capitalist country. :)
 

Hunter W.

Banned
It could have happened had World War III broken out between the West and the Soviet Union had broken out in 1945. Indeed, the Soviet Union in 1945 appears to have been rather similar to the Germany of early 1918--specifically, a hegemon which controls a huge chunk of Europe but which is also severely exhausted.

The 1939 borders are probably restored in the East. As for the West, I am assuming that Poland gets the remainder of Upper Silesia, all of East Prussia, Danzig, and eastern Pomernia in addition to everything that it controlled in 1939.

It might very well depend on how much the West is willing to both invest in Russia and engage with Russia.

Probably Yes. :)

It probably goes to Poland.

Probably the same outcomes in our TL for all of these. However, Israel's post-war borders might be a bit different depending on just how much aid it gets during its War of Independence in this TL.

Probably delayed at least by a decade or two.

Probably some prominent Russian exile who returns to Russia and who is in favor with the West.



No partition; rather, Korea becomes one unified, capitalist country. :)

Thanks for the reply, who do you think would became Russia's President, more or less a Yeltsin figure.
 
How exactly would hindering the main opponent of Germany make the war end quicker?
I suppose the argument would boil down to Germany naturally needing to maintain a major commitment to the Eastern Front all the same, with the front-line being more distant from either Italy and France when the Allies choose to make their landings making any possible transfer of forces more problematic and time consuming. They would also have to commit a number of forces to occupation duties.

I don't really see it as shortening the war though either, though I imagine the war would still end in '45 if the Western Allies are able to keep to their OTL schedule and make their push into Germany proper.
 
I read a thread from a little while ago "What if the USSR collapsed in 1945?"

I came to the conclusion that there is no reason for it to do so. That is why I have appealed to you to provide answers to why this individual implied it could have happened.
As such, I have some key questions about a post-war Europe without the Soviet Union.

  • Status of Poland's borders?
  • Russia, would it become a democracy?
  • Former Soviet states independence?
  • Königsberg question?
  • The state of Israel?
  • Romania and Bulgaria?
  • And perhaps most important of all: Moon Landing, nuclear development.
  • Russia's new head of state?
  • Korean peninsula?
IIRC in 1945 Stalin began ending what we might call "wartime liberties" so it might not be entirely beyond the scope of reality for some enterprising Soviet officers to try their hand at Operation Valkyrie. Assuming the officer clique is large enough to carry out a decapitation strike, yet small enough to not maintain order in the aftermath, the USSR could collapse into a civil war.

In which case:

Polish borders: see 1918

Democratic Russia: probably not for a while

SSRs independent: see 1917

Konigsburg: Polish (probably)

Israel: grows a lot faster early on

Bulgarian and Romania: Bulgaria probably ends up in the British sphere, but there's a chance Tito gets it. Romania probably sees King Michael reassert himself as Soviet forces pull out or mutiny.

Moon landing and nuclear development: The UK will be the second country to get nukes, hard to say on the moon landing.

Russia's new HoS: Whoever is still breathing in 5 years time.

Korea: United, and Kim Il-sung is a nobody.
 
I suppose the argument would boil down to Germany naturally needing to maintain a major commitment to the Eastern Front all the same, with the front-line being more distant from either Italy and France when the Allies choose to make their landings making any possible transfer of forces more problematic and time consuming. They would also have to commit a number of forces to occupation duties.

I don't really see it as shortening the war though either, though I imagine the war would still end in '45 if the Western Allies are able to keep to their OTL schedule and make their push into Germany proper.
No, this argument doesn't make much sense because the Soviets inflicted the vast majority of casualties upon the German army until 1944. If Germany is doing better, this is not happening to the same extent. Also, weaker Soviets means the Germans can withdraw more troops, especially since they're not nearly as close to Germany as in OTL. There is also the benefit Germany will gain from retaining more resources from the occupied eastern territories. So the advance on the Western front will be definitely delayed, if the Normandy landings don't fail altogether.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Thanks for the reply, who do you think would became Russia's President, more or less a Yeltsin figure.
Yeah, some Russian emigre who returns to Russia and who is more-or-less in the mold of Yeltsin but less authoritarian (Yeltsin had tanks fire on the Russian Parliament in 1993--not exactly the actions of either a democrat or a liberal!).
 
In any world where the German invasion was defeated, it's simply inconceivable that the Soviet Union would collapse so soon.

The regime had just vanquished the greatest threat the Soviet people had ever endured, an enemy that was fully intent on wiping them out. The war cost the lives of nearly thirty million Soviet citizens. Stalin and the Soviet state had triumphed, and destroyed the enemy that had been butchering the Soviet people by the millions. The regime was never in any danger.

Internal coup in the party against Stalin? It's possible, he'd lost a lot of prestige over his wartime leadership and had been forced to cede initiative to many other politicians and the military. But that doesn't mean the end of the Soviet Union. Those men are all committed members of the CPSU, hardliners almost to a man. The military was thoroughly an arm of the party, and the officer class was filled with true believers in the Bolshevik cause. And the Party itself monopolized all political power in the country.

And the people? They'd lived for two decades in a closed society. And that regime thoroughly indoctrinated its citizens. And even better, from the regime's point of view: they'd just vanquished an existential threat. That's a propaganda gift no amount of money can buy.

It took decades of slow disillusionment for the regime to collapse. And in the end, it only did because the August Putsch tanked what legitimacy the Soviet system had left.
 
IIRC in 1945 Stalin began ending what we might call "wartime liberties" so it might not be entirely beyond the scope of reality for some enterprising Soviet officers to try their hand at Operation Valkyrie. Assuming the officer clique is large enough to carry out a decapitation strike, yet small enough to not maintain order in the aftermath, the USSR could collapse into a civil war.
Stalin did not carry out the purges of the Red Army just out of paranoia. They were thoroughly under state control and a coup attempt is even less likely to succeed than Valkyrie (which was only undertaken when Germany was losing the war).

Polish borders: see 1918
Poland will have serious problems with controlling the Ukrainian majority areas. They had substantial trouble with insurgents even in OTL, when only a small border strip was populated with Ukrainians. Here, they would have to fight Ukrainians over a quarter of their land. Which if the situation is so bad as to force a Soviet retreat would mean that they were the one who controlled this territory.


SSRs independent: see 1917
The Baltic states possible and perhaps even the Transcaucasian republics but the other are less likely. With western Ukraine in Poland, Ukrainian nationalism is not especially strong in the Ukrainian SSR and it's even weaker in Belarus. Central Asia is firmly controlled by the Soviet state in this period, quite isolated and nationalism was weak at this point.


Bulgarian and Romania: Bulgaria probably ends up in the British sphere, but there's a chance Tito gets it. Romania probably sees King Michael reassert himself as Soviet forces pull out or mutiny.
No chance at all. This was only possible in OTL because the Soviets and the Soviet installed were pushing for the unification. No Bulgarian government would be willing to join Yugoslavia, especially on the conditions Tito had in mind.
 
Stalin did not carry out the purges of the Red Army just out of paranoia. They were thoroughly under state control and a coup attempt is even less likely to succeed than Valkyrie (which was only undertaken when Germany was losing the war).
Oh I agree that a coup attempt is pretty much impossible, but seeing as how we're already discussing the USSR imploding in 1945 I'd rather posit a plausible if very unlikely scenario than just say "this is ASB yo".

Poland will have serious problems with controlling the Ukrainian majority areas. They had substantial trouble with insurgents even in OTL, when only a small border strip was populated with Ukrainians. Here, they would have to fight Ukrainians over a quarter of their land. Which if the situation is so bad as to force a Soviet retreat would mean that they were the one who controlled this territory.
By "see 1918" I meant that it would get what it's capable of winning, not that it would get it's 1921 borders.

The Baltic states possible and perhaps even the Transcaucasian republics but the other are less likely. With western Ukraine in Poland, Ukrainian nationalism is not especially strong in the Ukrainian SSR and it's even weaker in Belarus. Central Asia is firmly controlled by the Soviet state in this period, quite isolated and nationalism was weak at this point.
And again, by "see 1917" I meant that it would entirely depend on how the Soviet Civil War and other secessionist wars would go, not that this civil war would see the exact same separatists as the Russian Civil War.

No chance at all. This was only possible in OTL because the Soviets and the Soviet installed were pushing for the unification. No Bulgarian government would be willing to join Yugoslavia, especially on the conditions Tito had in mind.
I wasn't thinking willingly, I was thinking more of Tito supporting the communist government in some sort of civil war that starts after the Soviet withdrawal then strong arming them into it should they become thoroughly dependant on him.
 
Top