Had Eastern Europe avoided Communism, how much more developed would it be right now?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had Eastern Europe avoided Communism (for instance, had the Soviet Union fallen in 1941-1942 and the Western Allies would have defeated the Nazis afterwards with the help of a lot of nuclear weapons), how much more developed would it be right now?

Any thoughts on this?
 
I had an answer all typed out, but had not noticed the part about "a lot of nuclear weapons." In that scenario, it's difficult to say for sure. How many weapons? Primarily tactical, or strategic? If you take the Soviets out of the fight, then you're looking at a much longer war, so assuming the Manhattan Project followed the OTL trajectory, we would have had a lot of nukes to use in 46 and 47. It could have been a lot of damage.

If the emphasis was mostly on tactical usage, most large cities would likely have survived. And, if they were used in a tactical capacity, would they have been employed only on German soil, or in occupied countries?

If strategic, then it would depend on how bad it got before Germany caved. If we'd basically hollowed out a half dozen of their largest population centers and most of their industrial centers, they don't bounce back anywhere near as fast they did historically. So on the one hand, you have a post-war Germany that is united rather than divided, but at the same time devastated and having to dig themselves out of a very deep hole. If not for the nukes, a united post-war Germany (assuming the Marshall Plan is still in place) would have become a formidable economic, industrial, and technological powerhouse within a generation, and been a very robust engine of change to uplift neighboring countries. If much of their country is destroyed by nuclear weapons, then they're more a liability to post-war Europe, and a drag on their neighbors, than a benefit. Hard to calculate how it would have shaken out without making some guesses about the extent of the nuclear destruction.
 
Polands doing relatively good right now, at least better than every other post-communist nation.

Take out the nukes as I don't have any idea, and I see czekoslovakia and Poland doing well, same with Hungary. Yugoslavia might have broken apart earlier with less bloodshed.

I see Ukraine and The Baltic states still being Russian satelites, Poland would probably have kalingrad and maybe Lithuania would be more anti-soviet union.

But without mother Russia, friends, Cold War between imperialist Britain and republican USA!
 
If the USSR goes and the Anglo-Americans are forced to defeat the Nazis on their lonesome? Eastern Europe is vastly less developed as a function of it either getting nuked to hell and/or genocided the fuck out of.
 
If the USSR goes and the Anglo-Americans are forced to defeat the Nazis on their lonesome? Eastern Europe is vastly less developed as a function of it either getting nuked to hell and/or genocided the fuck out of.
How long does it take for the WAllies to defeat the Reich if the USSR is out of the equation?

It would be very difficult to invade France ITTL since now they have to deal with an Uber Atlantic Wall plus a larger and better equipped Wehrmacht not bled white by years of losses in the East.
 
Polands doing relatively good right now, at least better than every other post-communist nation.

Take out the nukes as I don't have any idea, and I see czekoslovakia and Poland doing well, same with Hungary. Yugoslavia might have broken apart earlier with less bloodshed.

I see Ukraine and The Baltic states still being Russian satelites, Poland would probably have kalingrad and maybe Lithuania would be more anti-soviet union.

But without mother Russia, friends, Cold War between imperialist Britain and republican USA!

But if we're assuming a much longer war, Britain is in no position to wage any kind of cold war with us. Even as it was, they didn't stop rationing food until 1954, and they lost most of the empire by the time it had all settled out. A few more years of war, and Britain would have been bled dry.
 
How long does it take for the WAllies to defeat the Reich if the USSR is out of the equation?

At best? An additional 2-3 years, at a cost of millions of their men's lives (never mind the Germans and European civilians) even with nukes. When it comes it comes to winning the war post Fall of France at the lowest possible human cost to the Anglo-Americans, the USSR is indispensable.

And this is assuming the Anglo-Americans political will holds out all the way through to final victory, which is not a certain thing.
 
But if we're assuming a much longer war, Britain is in no position to wage any kind of cold war with us. Even as it was, they didn't stop rationing food until 1954, and they lost most of the empire by the time it had all settled out. A few more years of war, and Britain would have been bled dry.
ok, give me a sec, I can make this work.

How about everyone beats up the nazis when they tried to invade Czechoslovakia ecause poland gets pissed.
 
At best? An additional 2-3 years, at a cost of millions of their men's lives (never mind the Germans and European civilians) even with nukes.
So 1947-1948?

You really think it would cost the WAllies millions of deaths?

IOTL the Western Front from 1944-45 cost over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths for the US/Britain.
 
At best? An additional 2-3 years, at a cost of millions of their men's lives (never mind the Germans and European civilians) even with nukes. When it comes it comes to winning the war post Fall of France at the lowest possible human cost to the Anglo-Americans, the USSR is indispensable.

And this is assuming the Anglo-Americans political will holds out all the way through to final victory, which is not a certain thing.

And I honestly question whether we would have. It would have been extremely difficult and costly to defeat the Reich if they controlled the entire continent. Hitler would have been able to negotiate a very tempting truce from a position of considerable strength, and I don't see either the American or British people having the will to pay the price.

Also keep in mind that if Germany does not have to fight such a lengthy, furious battle against the advancing Soviets, they would have had a lot more resources to beef up their U-boat fleet and air force, so there's a good chance Britain is already taking more of a beating than they did in OTL. They'd have had more incentive to accept a truce.

And, given an additional 2-5 years, does Germany decide to develop a nuclear weapon of its own? Given that much more time, and that many more resources, that would have been at least conceivable. It would have been a lot easier for them to nuke London from France and Holland than it would have been for us to nuke Berlin from the UK - especially if they had been able to develop better jet fighters to to intercept our long-range heavy bombers.
 
At best? An additional 2-3 years, at a cost of millions of their men's lives (never mind the Germans and European civilians) even with nukes. When it comes it comes to winning the war post Fall of France at the lowest possible human cost to the Anglo-Americans, the USSR is indispensable.

And this is assuming the Anglo-Americans political will holds out all the way through to final victory, which is not a certain thing.

If the Soviet Union falls in 1942 don't you think it'd take at last 1946 or 1947 for the anglo-american forces estabilish air supremacy in order to safely drop nukes over Germany?
 
Found this quote from @CalBear in a similar thread (bolding is mine):
The problem with any landing in a Reich controlled Europe (although this is somewhat dependent on the sort of peace that exists in the East) is that the Heer can create a defensive belt that is close to unbreakable, assuming Hitler can be kept amused elsewhere and not divert materials for the latest Maus/Ratte/Dora Charlie Foxtrot.

At best the Allies can throw 10-12 divisions at the Continent (IOTL Overlord managed 5 divisions, the U.S. also put 3 divisions onto Saipan ten days later, so the lift could be found, especially if it happens after the end of the Pacific War) while maintaining anything close to coordinated command and control, sufficient air cover, and follow on logistics. That would be, by far, the largest landing operation ever attempted, marginally larger than the plans for Olympic, and would, with the proviso above, thrown at the most comprehensive defensive belt ever seen.

Twelve divisions sounds like a LOT of firepower, until you realize that the Heer could, without serious strain, put 50 divisions of troops into the defensive lines. Using slave labor, which is certain to be available in abundance, and the resources of the European Peninsula you can readily see just how deep a defensive belt could be, This assumes the conditions in the East are such that 35-40 divisions are sufficient to maintain whatever line the peace established with the Soviets. Moreover, a good number of the divisions manning the fixed defenses could be from Reich allies. Unlike the disaster along the Volga IOTL, the overall equipment levels of the Italians, Romanians, Czech, or Hiwi units wouldn't much matter since they will mainly need small arms and 37mm & 50mm anti-tank/landing boat guns. Heavier artillery, along with mobile formations could be mainly Heer.

An additional question is just how long it would take Bomber Command and the 8th AF to obtain air supremacy if the Soviets are no longer in the war. Not only will the Reich be able to shift noteworthy, if not huge amounts of DP weaponry to the defense of Inner Germany and the Western area of Occupation but the construction of single engine fighters should be able to increase thanks to a reduction in the need for ground attack aircraft in the East (again the conditions under which the Soviets surrendered make a major difference here). Total air supremacy will be an absolute requirement, both so fighter bombers can concentrate on the "Jabo" role and to allow the safe passage of 9-10,000 ships and craft of the landing armada and uninterrupted supply of the massive force that will need to follow on the assault divisions in the following 21 days.

IMO, the ONLY way to breach the Atlantic Wall, under the condition under discussion, would be with serious use of nuclear weapons in a tactical role, not just against shore defenses, but against communication nodes. Considering the production pace of Manhattan (IOTL there were only 53 physics packages in existence at the end of 1948) it would be summer of 1947, at the earliest, that any landing could be contemplated, assuming a rather modest four weapons per divisional frontage simply to force a crack in the defensive fortifications and 6-10 against transport nodes.

The Reich gets the Bomb? Piss on the fire and call in the dogs. The concentration of shipping is so great that a few underwater detonations would gut the landing force and its game over.
Here's another thread with extensive discussion of an Allied landing in the event of a Soviet collapse:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...e-wallies-plausibly-attempt-a-landing.406981/
 
Last edited:
The USSR collapsing in 1941-42 would have HUGE butterflies for the war. The Nazis may even stick around longer, especially if they get the bomb first - in which case, oh shit.

What may simply prevent Eastern Europe from being behind the Iron Curtis for the USSR to collapse after the war. Perhaps the leadership is too weakened, or maybe the Nazis do more damage, or maybe the Japanese get involved. But. Severely weakened post-war USSR would be too weak to spread communism.
 
If eastern Europe was able to experience the same kind of growth that western Europe enjoyed, then I would be willing to bet that the economic gap between east and west would be much less. The Baltics could conceivably be in the position of Finland, for instance, as late developers catching up with Scandinavia, while Czechoslovakia might not be very different from Austria and the gap that emerged between Spain and Poland post-1945 OTL and only began closing in recent decades might never occur.

As with everything, the details matter. How, exactly, did the Second World War end? Did the region take more damage than OTL? What sort of post-war arrangements were there, in Europe and for world trade generally? Will the post-1945 western European boom of OTL necessarily recur in a timeline where the United States is not engaged to bolster Europe against the Soviets, say?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
As with everything, the details matter. How, exactly, did the Second World War end? Did the region take more damage than OTL? What sort of post-war arrangements were there, in Europe and for world trade generally? Will the post-1945 western European boom of OTL necessarily recur in a timeline where the United States is not engaged to bolster Europe against the Soviets, say?
Since there appear to be some problems with my nuke scenario here, what about this instead? : The Western Allies set a trap for the Germans at Sedan in 1940 and cause the Germans to be encircled and destroyed; afterwards, Hitler is overthrown and the anti-Nazi German generals sue for peace on Western terms?
 
Since there appear to be some problems with my nuke scenario here, what about this instead? : The Western Allies set a trap for the Germans at Sedan in 1940 and cause the Germans to be encircled and destroyed; afterwards, Hitler is overthrown and the anti-Nazi German generals sue for peace on Western terms?

More plausible to see a better developed Poland then OTL, although I can't say how much. PDF27's A Blunted Sickle might give you an answer there once he gets around to the post-war there, assuming the Soviets don't invade when the Germans collapse.
 
Extremely interesting!

Also, though, what about invading through Istanbul instead and going on from there?
The logistics alone would make that option unfeasible for the WAllies.

The distance from Normandy to Berlin is less than 800 miles. The distance from Istanbul to Berlin is over 1,300 miles with extremely difficult terrain for the attackers but excellent terrain for the defending Heer. It would be a bloodbath that would make the OTL Italian campaign look easy.

The WAllies would always pick the shortest possible distance (France) for their major landing on the continent to save themselves time, resources, and men.
 
Top