Could the Soviet Union have collapsed in 1945?

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.
I don't think the Western Allies would tolerate Tito intervene in other countries once the Soviets have withdrawn. The Bulgarian Communist Party has little hope to establish a Communist regime if it's no longer backed by the Soviets. Tito's regime itself might be overthrown with Western help since he's no needed as a counterweight against the Soviets.
 
I don't think the Western Allies would tolerate Tito intervene in other countries once the Soviets have withdrawn.
The Soviets were never in Greece yet Tito was intervening in that conflict, so I think he'd try.

The Bulgarian Communist Party has little hope to establish a Communist regime if it's no longer backed by the Soviets. Tito's regime itself might be overthrown with Western help since he's no needed as a counterweight against the Soviets.
Probably, again, I think Bulgaria and Romania are probably going into Britain's pocket in the event of a Soviet Civil War. That does raise an interesting question of who the British would back for control of Bulgaria. Simeon? Or maybe to skirt people associated with the Axis go all the way back to "foxy" Ferdinand?
 
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.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Russians still pushing the Germans back, in a similar pattern to '41 and '42, but without the benefits of mechanization of parts of their military; a series of offensives rather than the one virtually continuous offensive that we got after Kursk. The Germans would be doing better then but in a relative sense, taking fewer casualties and inflicting more, but still losing ground.
 
Stalin would still have to interfere with the military strategy up to 1943 to suffer greater menpower losses among with equipment to degrade the Soviet Army of its combat capabilities until he grudgingly concedes that he has to let his Generals, whom he will mistrust on principle, to take the Soviet Armed Forces to do battle that will allow them to bleed the Germans instead of the Russians being bled to death...

And when the Soviet Armed Forces in 1945 finally reach the original borders near Poland/Hungary/Romania and get stuck fighting in a bitter quagmire in the Baltic States, Stalin decides that his Generals are finally failing enough that he will plan a purge of those whom he consider a threat to his political power and existence...

Perhaps this time the Soviet Generals that had survived his interference from 1941 to 1943 figures that Stalin will plan their demise and start an internal battle against the NKVD forces and strike back and that stops the Soviet Army's advance beyond the OTL borders for awhile until the mini-civil war concludes...

meh.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of the Russians still pushing the Germans back, in a similar pattern to '41 and '42, but without the benefits of mechanization of parts of their military; a series of offensives rather than the one virtually continuous offensive that we got after Kursk. The Germans would be doing better then but in a relative sense, taking fewer casualties and inflicting more, but still losing ground.
This still means more reserves available to sent West. And slower push-back still means more resources available to Germany.

The Soviets were never in Greece yet Tito was intervening in that conflict, so I think he'd try.
Yes, but in this scenario they would be unable to help him at all if the Western Allies decided to retaliate against him. So he would be cautious.

And of course there is no Bulgarian equivalent of ELAS to lead a civil war in Bulgaria if the army turns against the Communists.

Probably, again, I think Bulgaria and Romania are probably going into Britain's pocket in the event of a Soviet Civil War. That does raise an interesting question of who the British would back for control of Bulgaria. Simeon? Or maybe to skirt people associated with the Axis go all the way back to "foxy" Ferdinand?
The problems with Ferdinand is that first he's 84 in 1945 and second, universally hated in Bulgaria. More likely that they turn to their allies among the Agrarians (most notably G. M. Dimitrov, who was in exile in Egypt during the war) and the Socialists. Without Soviet support, these two would likely prevail over the Communists in a free election. This wouldn't save the monarchy, though - it was very unpopular at this point and both of these parties supported its abolition.
 
Last edited:
Top