Does the Soviet Union still eventually collapse if France doesn't fall in 1940?

CaliGuy

Banned
Does the Soviet Union still eventually collapse if France doesn't fall in 1940?

For the record, no Fall of France ensures these three things:

1. The Soviet Union will not endure tens of millions of casualties during World War II; indeed, the Soviet Union might not even enter World War II in the first place in this TL.

2. The Soviet Union doesn't acquire a massive Eastern European empire for half a century in this TL.

3. The world doesn't become bipolar (with the U.S. and the Soviet Union being the only two superpowers) in this TL.

Basically, what I am wondering is whether any of these factors would be likely to butterfly away the collapse of the Soviet Union several decades later. Indeed, while the Soviet Union's economy would have certainly been in the toilet in any case, I am wondering if it is likely that, in this TL, the Soviet Union would have been able to reform its economy while avoiding a 1991-style collapse.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
Maybe, maybe not, he'll maybe soviet union will collapse earlier as it doesn't have a great patriotic war to bring people together.
 
France not falling in 1940 does not necessarily end the Nazi threat to the Soviet Union. If the end result is an uneasy truce or armistice of some kind that preserves French independence within a framework of a Nazi Europe, Barbarossa may go ahead. It might be a year or two later, but since Lebensraum in the East was a cornerstone of Nazi ideology, Hitler might cut his losses with France and opt for a peace deal so that he can go ahead with his eastern plans.

If the SU stays out of the war altogether, Germany was still a menace to much of the world and the United States is likely drawn in at some point, which might leave the US as the sole postwar colossus presiding over a global pax Americana which leaves the Soviet Union a bit player on the global stage which it can either accept or it winds up much as OTL, spending money on its military to counter what it perceives as the American threat.

As for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, that had (oversimplifying greatly) a couple of things playing into it. The first was the cost of its empire, mainly felt through large expenditures on its military, which was a de facto occupation force from the Inner German border eastward. The second was a poor economic system riddled with inefficiencies and poor execution of central planning. While the first and second are related, the Soviet system was really a bad one for organizing a large economy. It seems to me that even a Soviet Union freed of occupation costs and the awful cost of World War II could still meet its demise due to its economy and all its problems. The gulf between Soviet and Western living standards was a vast one and would always be a potential source of discontent. Even those consumer goods produced under the Soviet system were generally markedly inferior to Western ones; greater quantity would not have made up for poor quality absent a much different organization and execution of the Soviet economic system.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
France not falling in 1940 does not necessarily end the Nazi threat to the Soviet Union. If the end result is an uneasy truce or armistice of some kind that preserves French independence within a framework of a Nazi Europe, Barbarossa may go ahead. It might be a year or two later, but since Lebensraum in the East was a cornerstone of Nazi ideology, Hitler might cut his losses with France and opt for a peace deal so that he can go ahead with his eastern plans.

I strongly doubt that France will agree to anything less than a total removal of the Nazis from power in Germany, though. Indeed, this speech appears to reflect the French government's attitude towards Nazism before the Fall of France:

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/daladier.htm

If the SU stays out of the war altogether, Germany was still a menace to much of the world and the United States is likely drawn in at some point, which might leave the US as the sole postwar colossus presiding over a global pax Americana which leaves the Soviet Union a bit player on the global stage which it can either accept or it winds up much as OTL, spending money on its military to counter what it perceives as the American threat.

Please see my point right above here, though; indeed, no Fall of France = an overthrow of the Nazis in Germany (in one way or another).

As for the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, that had (oversimplifying greatly) a couple of things playing into it. The first was the cost of its empire, mainly felt through large expenditures on its military, which was a de facto occupation force from the Inner German border eastward. The second was a poor economic system riddled with inefficiencies and poor execution of central planning. While the first and second are related, the Soviet system was really a bad one for organizing a large economy. It seems to me that even a Soviet Union freed of occupation costs and the awful cost of World War II could still meet its demise due to its economy and all its problems. The gulf between Soviet and Western living standards was a vast one and would always be a potential source of discontent. Even those consumer goods produced under the Soviet system were generally markedly inferior to Western ones; greater quantity would not have made up for poor quality absent a much different organization and execution of the Soviet economic system.

Very good points!

However, can't the Soviet Union try reforming its economy without undergoing (significant) political liberalization?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Maybe, maybe not, he'll maybe soviet union will collapse earlier as it doesn't have a great patriotic war to bring people together.
Yes, there's that; however, the Soviet Union also suffered unheard-of demographic losses as a result of World War II.
 
"Maybe, maybe not" is indeed the best answer. The Soviet Union suffered unprecedented human and economic losses in the Second World War which, along with many opportunity costs, lowered it's overall economic potential. IATL where France does not collapse, the Soviets short-medium run (that is, up until the 1970s, at least) military-economic position is certainly a lot stronger but ultimately there's only so much one can get out of command economies and eventually the Soviets will face the same choice they did OTL: reform or collapse. Dodging the damage of the Second World War might offer better prospects for successful reform, but it does not remotely offer any guarantee.
 
Last edited:
My opinion would be that Stalin pounces on Hitler, the USSR dominates Europe in whole or substantial part, and we end up in a cold war East versus West. The USSR still runs like a war economy, lets the newly liberated European vassals build the shoddy consumer goods as they build successive generations of shiny weaponry. Bigger population of disaffected and rebellious masses, including millions of Russians who are not dead nor able to use patriotism to blind themselves to the monster that was Stalin. Probably on track to rot from within and collapse on schedule. Best case you get détente earlier, more old Stalinists dying faster from too many women and too much vodka, and a reformer who breaks out to give the "New Economy" a second try in time to appease the masses.
 
all nations rise and fall ( or at least governments ) - no empire endures forever

I agree with Napoleon - way too many butterflies

granted there should be a steady boost with a war, but as noted the patriotic war became a glue that held things together in a very totalitarian state, it also helped to covered up and or gloss over atrocities committed by the NKVD in the Soviet Union.

So quick war, France beats the germans back, even if they stalemate, Hitler is discredited and overthrown. does this partition Germany? I think not as the west was equally afraid of Soviet Union who also invaded Poland. Italy would switch sides quickly.

So you have a Soviet Russia with more population and an intact industrial base and still aging infrastructure. the one thing the war did in a lot of places is force a rebuilding of everything, this required lots of planning and resources and labor that created a massive uptick in productivity. The Soviet War machine ran on all cylinders in 44'45. However purges will continue, so who is to say who is dead and who isn't. I do not think we would see an Israel in this situation so I would think more immigration to the United States who at this point also would have sat out the war in Europe outside of economic and material support.

so here while there will be investment and new factories and obviously less brain drain.

Other factors to consider might be a thaw in Soviet - US relations, since the United States wouldn't be seen as the true and total enemy of socialism.
By 1945 give or take a year the depression is ending, while graphs will show a serious uptick due to the war in OTL, TTL will have a more gradual uptick. a boost from the fighting and manufacturing will help.

No USA at war probably means FDR doesn't run again in '44

now you need to look further

-china
war with Japan and Civil war how does this end. ( odds are not in Japans favor to press on in 41 -42 if Germany is already out of the war )

- Decolonization

This could be delayed some or even be handled better, yet I would wager many of the same issues would remain

- The bomb
Someone is going to create this thing along with nuclear power. who, what, when, where, how

- civil rights
the good times of the 1950's were the ground floor for this in the USA

no war? Ike probably is not President - delays potentially the Interstate System or modifies it.
one could still see a Kennedy in the white house, Bobby, Joe or JFK are all potentials.

United Nations?

Soviet Union:
No patriotic war? whats the glue? the great struggle that binds?
Many leaders Brezhnev, Khrushchev and others benefited in prestige from the war. Succession would be different after Stalin.

Space race might be delayed a few years. though not much, rockets were understood by this time.

Soviets continue to build up with out the constraints of the war. however one needs to wonder how this would be applied and I would have to go over pre war economic plans to refresh my brain as to what was on the drawing board.

Suffice to say by 1940 the Soviets had swallowed the Baltics and part of Poland, they want to keep these gains ( and only war is going to dislodge them ) how will England and France force the soviets from these territories, if at all...



suffice to say a quick war makes a completely different world.
a war that doesn't spread from Europe, makes a different world.
no war between Germany and the Soviets also makes a different world, and I would assume that if the Germans were on what appears to be the loosing end of things the soviets will at the minimum swallow the rest of Poland, which in turn would have knock on effects.
 

Deleted member 94680

If Hitler is discredited and overthrown (likely by the Army, now that 'GröFaZ' has lost his sheen of invincibility) then I can't see Germany being divided. A right-wing but democratic government would rise (July '44 plotters come early) but they won't be keen on giving up their 'gains', especially in the East.

A divided Poland maybe?
 

Ryan

Donor
I thinks its survival depends on economic reform. if it doesn't reform it will still probably collapse and conversely if it had reformed otl it probably would have survived.
 
IMHO if there is some sort of ongoing fighting in France for at least a year after the fall of France OTL there is no way Barbarossa goes off. The generals would simply not tolerate it, they knew how badly a two front war was for Germany in WWI. Barbarossa went forward because the German military did not see Britain as a threat to their situation in 1940/41 where they they had no opponents on the continent and they did not see the USA entering the war directly given their reading of US domestic politics - and they also had contempt for American military abilities. OTOH with the Britain and French still fighting on the continent in France/Belgium the Germans simply can't gather together enough forces for Barbarossa and hold in the west.

In this scenario, and some point, Stalin would attack Germany when he saw they were on the ropes to get what he could - at least the rest of Poland. Absent Barbarossa Hungary and Romania are not allies/co-belligerents with Germany but still neutral, so any attack by Stalin on them would be "unjustified". Stalin can't get to Bulgaria (who participated against Greece) without going through Romania. While occupying the Baltics that were in the German sphere per the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement might be winked at, since Britain and France went to war over Poland, occupying all of Poland and continuing to occupy what they took (border adjustments possible) would not go down well.

Assuming the USSR avoids a war with UK/France it will have some territorial gains in Baltics, eastern Poland (some), and what it took from Finland. The death and destruction will not happen. However the technical advances it got through Lend-Lease won't happen. The advances from captured German tech and scientists won't happen. The improvements in Soviet industry and military won't happen - many of the leaders of the war and post-war USSR will die in the GULAG. The realities of the war forced Stalin to put "technocrats" back in to Soviet industry, and competent commanders back in the military. The gutting of the military, industrial leadership, and other sectors from the purges of the 1930s that was undone with survivors because of wartime necessity won't happen. The positive feelings/tolerance for the USSR/communism pushed during WWII in the west won't exist, in fact anticommunism will be stronger as the USSR is seen from the get-go as another aggressive dictatorship like the Nazis, the R-M pact won't be "forgotten" ITTL.

In the far east, assuming there is a Pacific War I don't see the USSR being invited to join by the USA and Sakhalin, the Kuriles, manchuria, and North Korea won't become Soviet owned or satellites.

Will the USSR survive longer than OTL, more likely than not. It would do so as a more minor power, and the structural limitations of its political/economic system will probably cause it to implode.
 

Deleted member 94680

What exactly are we saying by "no fall of France?"

  • A defeat of the Nazis (what follows that? Coup? Restructuring? Removal of Hitler but another nazi as Führer still?)
  • A stalemate and some kind of Treaty Peace?
  • Ongoing, drawn out WWI style warfare with no real advance or retreat by either side?
It informs the butterflies that follow if the Nazis, although humbled, are still in power for example.
 
Top