DBWI: Soviet-American Split?

We all know of the alliance between the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom that has lasted since the Second World War. It’s an alliance that has been in place for more than 70 years and it’s hard to imagine a world without it, but that’s just the question I want to ask.
If relations between the allies (specifically the Soviets and Americans) had deteriorated and become hostile at some point after WW2, what would the effects be, how would this come about with to begin with, and what kind of world would result from this massive change in world history?
 
Last edited:
Well we would probably have to have FDR die his fourth term probably when he had that near death experience in 1945 that convinced him not to run again for a 5th term
 

Babatus

Donor
Maybe by having the soviet war effort in the 1941-42 period go better?

The fact that during the war Stalin ended up having to allow some allied troops to fight in Caucasus helped a lot to strengthen the United Nation Alliance and makes it “concrete” by having most of the involved nations “bleed” together. It would strengthen the position of Stalin and maybe give him more incentive to clash with the Anglo-Americans.

Well, it can also transform this TL into a Nazi victory, but I guess the “could the soviet win without Anglo-American help” is one of the most discussed POD here.
 
As Babatus says this is ridiculous. The minor Chinese deviationalist Tsung had some theories about the structure of imperialism that if correct could have fostered such a condition. Of course they were not. Peaceful competition between socialist wage labour and capitalist wage labour naturally is the predominant relationship amongst economic entities and thus states. As Stalin’s anointed successor, the Ukraine Soviet citizen Khrushchev said “we will bury you under cheap consumption goods.”
 
Last edited:

Babatus

Donor
I wasn’t that affirmative about it. My point is to highlight that, to create any sort of geopolitical tension between you’ll need to create both a stronger USSR and the reason for them to be hostile with the West.

Think about it, at the end of the war, the Soviet Union economy in shamble after having major population and industrial centers devasted by the fight, and literally surrounded by “pro western” regimes. An entire British-American Army group was deployed in Ukraine after bleeding to liberate Soviet Territory, and the nazi exaction in Poland/Soviet Union were massively relayed by medias, creating a huge “popular support” for United Nations.

Thus, we have to imagine a POD that both strengthens the USSR (to give a chance to compete with the Western Allies on an “aggressive” basis) and create reason for them to be hostiles.

Problem is that both those “objective” seems antagonistic. Indeed, removing direct Western intervention on the east front jeopardize the chance of the Soviets beating the Wehrmacht, and, as you pointed out, most of the Soviet economy “miracle” after the war was due to them providing cheap labor to western factory, before allowing them to join the “first world” nations by becoming an economic superpower.

For me, only chance is to have them deal “alone” with the Germans and stopping them early and as much west as possible.
 
If relations between the allies (specifically the Soviets and Americans) had deteriorated and become hostile at some point after WW2, what would the effects be, how would this come about with to begin with, and what kind of world would result from this massive change in world history?
Well, the world would be a less stable one for starters as the "Big Three" of the USA, the USSR, and the UK have maintained international order for the past 70 years, creating the "Modern Pax Romana" we see today.
 
Are pre-war PODs allowed? Why not just have the Soviet Union ally with the Nazis?
Well if the Soviets allied with the Nazis it wouldn’t really be a split, since in that scenario they wouldn’t have been allies to begin with. POD’s during the war are obviously allowed but ones before it don’t answer the question of what would happen if relations deteriorated and became hostile at some point after the war.
 
So, how accurate is my statement of how the three-way order between the British Commonwealth of Nations (even if New Delhi makes most decisions nowadays), the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a "global Pax Romana" of the modern world?
 
So, how accurate is my statement of how the three-way order between the British Commonwealth of Nations (even if New Delhi makes most decisions nowadays), the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a "global Pax Romana" of the modern world?

Three-way? Then what’s the Republic of China, chopped liver? :p

In all seriousness, things work out as FDR intended. The major victorious powers - US, USSR, Britain, France and China - all work in concert as ‘global policemen’ to ensure no further major wars break out.
 
Three-way? Then what’s the Republic of China, chopped liver? :p

In all seriousness, things work out as FDR intended. The major victorious powers - US, USSR, Britain, France and China - all work in concert as ‘global policemen’ to ensure no further major wars break out.
Well, France and China are the main "secondary" enforcers as their authority is more "regional" than the global reach of the USSR, USA, and the Commonwealth.
 
Well, France and China are the main "secondary" enforcers as their authority is more "regional" than the global reach of the USSR, USA, and the Commonwealth.

True, though arguably China looks to become a ‘primary’ - outside of Commonwealth territory they have most of Asia in their economic/military sphere, plus they’ve been expanding economically a lot in Africa.
 

Babatus

Donor
Well if the Soviets allied with the Nazis it wouldn’t really be a split, since in that scenario they wouldn’t have been allies to begin with. POD’s during the war are obviously allowed but ones before it don’t answer the question of what would happen if relations deteriorated and became hostile at some point after the war.

POD matters a lot actually. If the « split » happens during WW2 or soon after WW2, the USSR will probably stay in an « hard line » communist stance under Staline, and will probably support Mao instead of Chiang during China civil-war. I may be stretching it a little bit, but we can even speculate about the chance of China “joining” the USSR, which is one of the only for me to have a communist state that has a decent chances to take on both the Commonwealth and the US. Conflict can then happens with the USSR trying to restore it controls over the territory granted by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (which tend to be forgotten nowadays) but lost after the war was concluded. You might also need the USSR getting nuke sufficiently early, as the nukes dropped over Germany to end the war “quickly” proved than it was a sine qua non condition to take on the USA.



If it happens after Staline “retired” in 1948 (actually was more or less forced to resign by the Khrouchtchev/Zhukov/Beria triumvirate, as historian showed after the USSR archives were opened in 2008) transition to “social-capitalist” economy fueled by the sweatshops still happens, and you'll have to find “imperialist” reasons (such as the tensions with the Commonwealth following their loss of influence over Norway, as stated earlier) for such split to happens. It can result into major tension, and eventually into an arms-race like in the early 20th century, but I don't see any major war happening as in scenario A.
 
Top