Did THe USSR Really Need The Buffer OF E. European States?

It would have happened anyway, probably faster, more extensively and without any mass starvation. In 1914 Russia was the fourth largest industrialised economy in the world and its growth rate was so high it would have doubled in size inside of thirty years, and that was under the Tsar’s government that everyone likes to pretend were incompetent and corrupt, not under the Provisional Government that introduced extensive reforms before being toppled by the Bolshevik Coup.

Figures below from The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers.

Russia is a distant fourth in 1914 compared to the top three powers (the US, Great Britain, Germany in order of strongest to weakest). Germany is picked for comparison to Russian growth, I can provide the book's information on the other two if desired (and if such extensive quoting is permitted by site rules).

Let's start with steel production (or pig-iron in 1890).

1890: 2.2. million tons

1910: 3.5 million tons

1913: 4.8 million tons.

1920 OTL: 0.16 million.

1930 OTL: 5.7 million.

1938 OTL: 18 million tons.

To put this in perspective, Germany went from 4.1 million tons of pig iron to 6.3 million tons of steel (1900), then 17.6 to 7.6 (1920), to 11.3, to 23.2 tons of steel.

Energy consumption from modern fuels in the equivalent of millions of metric tons of coal:

1890: 10.9

1900: 20

1910: 41

1913: 54

1920 OTL: 14.3

1930 OTL: 65

1938 OTL: 177

Germany: 71, 112, 187, 159, 177, 228.

Total Industrial potential (UK in 1900=100)

1880: 24.5

1900: 47.5

1913: 76.6

1928 OTL: 72

1938 OTL: 152

Again, with Germany for comparison's sake: 27.4, to 71.2, to 137.7 in 1913, then 158 in 1928 and 214 in 1938.

So, while I don't know how the Soviets would have compared to then nontsarist alternative, Russia's pre-Soviet growth does not indicate it would grow faster under the incompetent and corrupt tsarist regime or something similarly not-really-that-swift.
 
Last edited:
The Soviet Union was never a partner with Nazi Germany. They signed a non-agression pact with Germany after they tried to years to form a United Front against Fascism with Britain and France but those controls showed no interest in such an alliance. The Soviet Union was trying to buy time to build up its defenses against a German invasion.

The new Polish border the Soviets established closely followed the Curzon Line proposed by the British Statesmen Lord Curzon in 1919 or 1920. The Baltic Republics had only become independent because of the intervention of German and Allied armies during the Russian Civil War.

And then invaded four countries and ripped out two parts of another in accordance with the secret protocols of that pact, all areas which had been successful breakaways during the Russian Civil War. :rolleyes:
 
And then invaded four countries and ripped out two parts of another in accordance with the secret protocols of that pact, all areas which had been successful breakaways during the Russian Civil War. :rolleyes:

And had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact remained in force for the whole of 1941 and into 1942, Germany respecting its particulars, Stalin would have had another go at Finland. Molotov demanded Germany to stay out of Finland in late 1940 exactly to have "free hands" to deal with with the troublesome Finns (as indeed the secret protocol outlined); the revised plans for the renewed invasion had already been drawn in 1940.
 
And had the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact remained in force for the whole of 1941, Germany respecting its particulars, Stalin would have had another go at Finland. Molotov demanded Germany to stay out of Finland in late 1940 exactly to have "free hands" to deal with with the troublesome Finns (as indeed the secret protocol outlined); the revised plans for the renewed invasion had already been drawn in 1940.

The really interesting bit is that everywhere the Soviets historically nabbed, including Bessarabia and Bukovina *were* accepted in the secret protocols. Too, Soviet aid during the 1939-41 period in an economic sense as well as German assurance of having only one front to fight on were crucial to Hitler's strategies in that point in time. This doesn't obscure the horrors of the Eastern Front any to note what the USSR was doing *before* Barbarossa, if anything it underscores Hitler's stupidity in neglecting that the Soviets were doing everything possible to adhere to the pact and thinking military aggression would secure more-better goods. :rolleyes:
 
Sean, the USSR and Nazi Germany being partners under Ribbentrop-Molotov in such matters as carving up Eastern Europe, massive economic cooperation and even having the USSR's supporters in the western democracies* being assigned to undermine efforts to rearm and oppose Nazi Germany...denial of the facts is rather different from a difference of opinion.


*Those who didn't break with Moscow in disgust over the partnership.
 
If the Nazis were networking with the Silver Shirts in Britain in the same way, the anti-fascists would justifiably go nuts.

The Sliver Shirts in Britain do not exist. We had Blackshirts and Greenshirts (who weren't really Fascists, just following the 'coloured shirts are awesome' trend), but no Sliver Shirts. The Blackshirts were funded by Mussolini, and anti-Fascists did go nuts.

Oh yes, I Blame Communism. Can I have the name of the MP imprisoned under the War Powers Act? He'll be useful for a research project.
 
The Sliver Shirts in Britain do not exist. We had Blackshirts and Greenshirts (who weren't really Fascists, just following the 'coloured shirts are awesome' trend), but no Sliver Shirts. The Blackshirts were funded by Mussolini, and anti-Fascists did go nuts.

Oh yes, I Blame Communism. Can I have the name of the MP imprisoned under the War Powers Act? He'll be useful for a research project.

The Silver Shirts were in fact an American version of Fascism founded by William Dudley Pelley. Identifying them with the British fascists is a case of mistaking TL-191's WWII for the real one. ;)
 
It was either a Soviet buffer or again a western one. Soviet decided for the former since they, well, could.

Would be something interesting to explore: For reason X, the soviet forces reclaim their lands but are unable to advance further. Eastern europe is liberated by non-communist forces. What then ? Authoritarian regimes who will come down on any form leftist movements ?
 
Green Shirts, Black Shirts, Silver Shirts--regardless of the color, if they're supported by foreign powers to undermine one's own government, that is reason to assume said foreign powers are hostile.
 
Green Shirts, Black Shirts, Silver Shirts--regardless of the color, if they're supported by foreign powers to undermine one's own government, that is reason to assume said foreign powers are hostile.

And the United States, which has occupied multiple countries, sometimes for decades, and which has regularly since the colonial era, much less the Cold War turned to generals in small states to overturn their ruler is what? Aggressively friendly? :rolleyes: The USA did not gun down Frenchmen for leaving NATO where the USSR did do that in Prague but if you decide to turn to that as a counterargument I will again repeat that not being the Soviet Union is not enough to qualify the USA as friendly, nice, and good.
 
And the United States, which has occupied multiple countries, sometimes for decades, and which has regularly since the colonial era, much less the Cold War turned to generals in small states to overturn their ruler is what? Aggressively friendly? :rolleyes: The USA did not gun down Frenchmen for leaving NATO where the USSR did do that in Prague but if you decide to turn to that as a counterargument I will again repeat that not being the Soviet Union is not enough to qualify the USA as friendly, nice, and good.

Taking the orthodox view of the Cold War and viewing the revisionist school with disdain does not equal an endorsement of the Banana Wars.

I think the whole "the U.S. had an economic empire and the Soviets a military one" is a desperate grab at moral equivalency with a few grains of truth sprinkled for flavor and palatability.
 
Taking the orthodox view of the Cold War and viewing the revisionist school with disdain does not equal an endorsement of the Banana Wars.

I think the whole "the U.S. had an economic empire and the Soviets a military one" is a desperate grab at moral equivalency with a few grains of truth sprinkled for flavor and palatability.

It does bring up the problem that some of the leaders who we called Soviet puppets were nothing of the sort and that some Cold War-era tinpot dictators played the superpowers for their own benefit and didn't care which one they strung along. The Cold War USA defined liberty as not-Soviet which is how the Pahlavis, Pinochet, La Violencia, Batista, the Contras, and Syngman Rhee came to represent "freedom." In such cases it would have been more honest to admit that they were simply our dictators, not to try to spin Rhee and the Shah into defenders of freedom.

That's as Orwellian as the Soviets defining 1955 and 1968 as representing any type of freedom. But then nobody expects the USSR to give more than lip service to that idea in the first place and if anyone did.....:rolleyes:
 
Green Shirts, Black Shirts, Silver Shirts--regardless of the color, if they're supported by foreign powers to undermine one's own government, that is reason to assume said foreign powers are hostile.

But the purpose of the Blackshirts wasn't to undermine the government - they existed to defend it. We wouldn't let them (during the General Strike, they were allowed to strike break only as disinterested patriotic citizens, they had to take off their uniforms :p), but that's what they wanted to do.
 
Top