How much of a role do you think that WWII and its aftermath had in the eventual breakup of the USSR?

CaliGuy

Banned
How much of a role do you think that World War II and its aftermath had in the eventual breakup of the USSR?

A couple of users here have suggested that without WWII and its aftermath (specifically holding an empire in Eastern Europe and fighting a Cold War against the U.S.), the USSR would have likely survived and avoided breaking up:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...t-the-fall-of-france-50-years-earlier.409620/

What I'm wondering is this--do you agree with this sentiment? Indeed, do you think that the Soviet collapse and break-up would likely be completely avoided in a TL where there is either no Soviet involvement or a much smaller Soviet involvement in World War II (both of which can be done by avoiding the Fall of France in 1940)?
 
Last edited:
How much of a role do you think that World War II and its aftermath had in the eventual breakup of the USSR?

A couple of users here have suggested that without WWII and its aftermath (specifically holding an empire in Eastern Europe and fighting a Cold War against the U.S.), the USSR would have likely survived and avoided breaking up:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...t-the-fall-of-france-50-years-earlier.409620/

What I'm wondering is this--do you agree with this sentiment? Indeed, do you think that the Soviet collapse and break-up would likely be completely butterflied away in a TL where there is either no Soviet involvement or a much smaller Soviet involvement in World War II (both of which can be done by avoiding the Fall of France in 1940)?

That depends: are we talking about no Fall of France in the sense that France manages to beat the Germans, or Germany never invades France to begin with? I'd be more than willing to have an extended discussion on this with you, but the premise needs a little more fleshing out first as my conclusion varies wildly depending on weather or not National Socialism remains a "Third Pole" and just how promenant France and GB are relative to other powers.
 
Last edited:
What I'm wondering is this--do you agree with this sentiment? Indeed, do you think that the Soviet collapse and break-up would likely be completely butterflied away in a TL where there is either no Soviet involvement or a much smaller Soviet involvement in World War II (both of which can be done by avoiding the Fall of France in 1940)?
There is another argument of course that Russia not effected by ww2 would mean an earlier breakup due to the lack of an outpouring of patriotism inspired by ww2.

Personally I facilitate between that and the idea that if you have a no fall of France scenario USA never becomes the great global superpower of capitalism and ussr never has such a large opponent for a 40 year arms race and therefore it's much easier for the ussr to survive.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That depends: are we talking about no Fall of France in the sense that France manages to beat the Germans, or Germany never invades France to begin with? I'd be more than willing to have an extended discussion on this with you, but the premise needs a little more fleshing out first as my conclusion varies wildly depending on weather or not National Socialism remains a "Third Pole" and just how promenant France and GB are relative to other powers.
I mean that France manages to beat the Germans in WWII. In such a TL, either the USSR never gets involved in WWII at all or--if the war lasts long enough--enters the war on the Franco-British side and achieves victory with much less casualties in comparison to our TL and also with a smaller post-World War II empire afterwards.

There is another argument of course that Russia not effected by ww2 would mean an earlier breakup due to the lack of an outpouring of patriotism inspired by ww2.

Such sentiments could certainly be there; however, would the Soviet leadership have allowed these sentiments to be publicly expressed?

Personally I facilitate between that and the idea that if you have a no fall of France scenario USA never becomes the great global superpower of capitalism and ussr never has such a large opponent for a 40 year arms race and therefore it's much easier for the ussr to survive.

To be fair, though, you could have an arms race between the Soviets and the Franco-British in a TL where the U.S. never enters World War II.
 
How much of a role do you think that World War II and its aftermath had in the eventual breakup of the USSR?

A couple of users here have suggested that without WWII and its aftermath (specifically holding an empire in Eastern Europe and fighting a Cold War against the U.S.), the USSR would have likely survived and avoided breaking up:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...t-the-fall-of-france-50-years-earlier.409620/

What I'm wondering is this--do you agree with this sentiment? Indeed, do you think that the Soviet collapse and break-up would likely be completely butterflied...

This is not a BUTTERFLY effect!!!!

Butterfly effects change outcomes that are not predictable anyway, such as the fates of random individuals in a battle, or the conception of a child, or the success or failure of some unusual and difficult action.

This is a possible knock-on.

... away in a TL where there is either no Soviet involvement or a much smaller Soviet involvement in World War II (both of which can be done by avoiding the Fall of France in 1940)?

In the long term - I think that WW II actually strenghtened the Soviet Union, by giving it a patriotic myth to rally around, by adding territory, by eliminating dangerous rivals, and by fostering the effectiveness and size of Soviet military forces. Also, WW II as we know it resulted fairly soon afterwards in Communist China, which insulated much of the USSR from contact with the non-Communst world.

OTOH, if there is no WW-II-as-we-know-it, it is very likely that the USSR is the first nation to make the effort of developing nuclear weapons. With a monopoly of nuclear weapons, the USSR might establish an unshakeable global hegemony, and survive indefinitely.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This is not a BUTTERFLY effect!!!!

Butterfly effects change outcomes that are not predictable anyway, such as the fates of random individuals in a battle, or the conception of a child, or the success or failure of some unusual and difficult action.

This is a possible knock-on.

Agreed; indeed, I apologize for my error above and have now corrected this error. :)

In the long term - I think that WW II actually strenghtened the Soviet Union, by giving it a patriotic myth to rally around, by adding territory, by eliminating dangerous rivals, and by fostering the effectiveness and size of Soviet military forces. Also, WW II as we know it resulted fairly soon afterwards in Communist China, which insulated much of the USSR from contact with the non-Communst world.

Communist China only insulated the far-off Asian parts of the Soviet Union from the non-Communist world, though. However, the Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe in our TL largely insulated the European part of the Soviet Union in our TL.

In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think that this made a significant difference; after all, wasn't travel to and from the Soviet Union already heavily restricted in Stalin's time?

OTOH, if there is no WW-II-as-we-know-it, it is very likely that the USSR is the first nation to make the effort of developing nuclear weapons. With a monopoly of nuclear weapons, the USSR might establish an unshakeable global hegemony, and survive indefinitely.

Didn't the Soviets simply spy on the U.S. nuclear program, though? Indeed, wasn't that how they managed to build a nuke so quickly?
 
Such sentiments could certainly be there; however, would the Soviet leadership have allowed these sentiments to be publicly expressed?
They don't have to be expressed. Ww2 was the great patriotic war. It had a massive uniting effect on the Soviet union for years.

To be fair, though, you could have an arms race between the Soviets and the Franco-British in a TL where the U.S. never enters World War II.
Yes but Britain and France, no matter how ww2 comes out will never push ussr to spend like USA did.
 
In the long term - I think that WW II actually strenghtened the Soviet Union, by giving it a patriotic myth to rally around, by adding territory, by eliminating dangerous rivals, and by fostering the effectiveness and size of Soviet military forces. Also, WW II as we know it resulted fairly soon afterwards in Communist China, which insulated much of the USSR from contact with the non-Communst world.

OTOH, if there is no WW-II-as-we-know-it, it is very likely that the USSR is the first nation to make the effort of developing nuclear weapons. With a monopoly of nuclear weapons, the USSR might establish an unshakeable global hegemony, and survive indefinitely.

I doubt the USSR is gonna beat tube alloys to the bomb
 

Greenville

Banned
I don't think the Cold War had very much to do with the final collapse with the Soviet Union. World War II expanded the Soviet economy and their natural resources. In fact their economy was at its height in the 1970s in the years before economic stagflation of the following decade. Both actually benefitted the Soviet Union more for economic decline and shielded it than caused the problem to grow stronger.
 
Agreed; indeed, I apologize for my error above and have now corrected this error. :)
Sorry I "yelled" - but this error is becoming ubiquitous.

Communist China only insulated the far-off Asian parts of the Soviet Union from the non-Communist world,
Well, all parts of the USSR are far-off, because the country was so damn big.

China bordered large areas that were populated: the Far East, around Manchuria; the central Asian area around Tashkent and Samarkand; and the settled area of western Siberia, around Novosibirsk.

In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think that this made a significant difference; after all, wasn't travel to and from the Soviet Union already heavily restricted in Stalin's time?

But that kind of sealing off would be much harder.

Didn't the Soviets simply spy on the U.S. nuclear program, though? Indeed, wasn't that how they managed to build a nuke so quickly?

Soviet physicists figured out that the Bomb was possible as early as 1940. In 1942, a young physicist serving in the army wrote to Stalin about it. Stalin actually saw the letter, and called in senior physicists to discuss it. They agreed that the Bomb was possible, but thought that it was not practical during the war. Stalin set up a skeleton project to be activated after the war. He also directed Beria to step up existing espionage against the Manhattan Project.

And to be sure, the fruits of that espionage did contribute to Soviet success. But they probably could have and would have done it entirely on their own.
 
I mean that France manages to beat the Germans in WWII. In such a TL, either the USSR never gets involved in WWII at all or--if the war lasts long enough--enters the war on the Franco-British side and achieves victory with much less casualties in comparison to our TL and also with a smaller post-World War II empire afterwards.



Such sentiments could certainly be there; however, would the Soviet leadership have allowed these sentiments to be publicly expressed?



To be fair, though, you could have an arms race between the Soviets and the Franco-British in a TL where the U.S. never enters World War II.

Well than, the result is the following:

While the Soviet Union may be stronger, it also ends up being Public Enemy Number 1 for the rest of the world: after all, who was feeding the Nazi's all those raw materials and carved up Eastern Europe with them? Communism was already something of a boogeyman in the eyes of the world, and was only really put on the back burner because Stalin was more willing to back the European status quo while the Facists were trying to rock the boat.

In a war in which France and Great Britain manage to beat the Nazi's without Soviet assistance, Centeral and Southern Europe are now firmly in the camp of the center-right Imperial Capitalist-Merchantalist powers (With no quick Fall of France, I'm assuming Mussolini hesitates and dosen't join the war on Germany's side. It's not like they haden't sent out plenty of diplomatic feelers towards the Western Powers IRL during the 1920's, and could be trusted to exist within the international system: especially one where Communism is now the extistential threat). Russia, at best, gets to keep Bessarabia, parts of Poland, and the Baltic states... the later two of which are tarred pretty heavily with the brown paint of Nazi collaboration and have functional, pretty legitimate governments (The Poles even with part of their country liberated) backed by the British and French.

The problem for the Soviets is, while they may be less wrecked internally, their potential enemies also haven't been completely spent in an extended war and occupation... and Stalin dosen't get the reputation as the man who beat Hitler, but rather the one who shook hands with him and divided up Eastern Europe and provided the feedstock for his genocidal war machine. Expect this to have a huge knock-on effect in public opinion across Europe, even among moderate left-wingers: Stalin isen't the workers'' liberator and defender from Facist aggression, only showing he was willing to co-operate with even the most anti-Socialist governments for a naked land-grab. This reputation and lack of the political capital their WW II victory provided, combined with the absence of Red Army bayonets in Eastern Europe, and their influence is likely pushed back to their internal border. If horror stories of what they're pulling in Ukraine get out too... oh boy, I can imagine the field day Western propagandists are going to have with THAT.

Also, I think its fairly likely Japan dosen't jump on France or Britian's colonial Empires (Or the Dutch East Indies either... hell, I imagine the Dutch government would be eager to sell Japan the oil it needs so they could use the money to rebuild their country), as the two don't look like they're on the ropes or too militarily distracted in Europe to notice. This radically reduces the power of the naval clique, as they don't have many feathers in their cap or even targets they can push for (Without looking suicidal), while the army builds up its prestige in China. Given France and Britain now have the Soviets on the top of their threat list, and I can see them at least begrudgingly accepting Japan's strengthened position as a hedge against Communist power in the Far East. If nothing else, they aren't going to actively try to dick Japan over: I think the most likely scenario is an offer of "international mediation" to reach a reasonable settlement in China: in which recognition of Manchuko and certain economic privileges for the Japanese are recognized in exchange for Japan keeping order/suppressing the Reds in Asia and agreeing to a guarantee of British, French, and Dutch territorial sovergeinties in East Asia (The Americans might explicently sign onto this, but I doubt they'd do much more than politely protest from their isolationist position. After all, how easy is it going to be to sell the American public on a war, after the international community has come together to hammer out a peace, for the sake of yelllow people while the economy is still recovering?)

So, by the mid 50's the Soviet Union is effectively contained by a ring of Imperial powers: Britain and France leading an alliance with Facist Italy, West/liberated-Nazi-Occupied Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, The 2nd Weimar Republic (or whatever the new government in Germany is), The Magyar Republic (or whatever government they accept in Budapest), and Bulgaria at the absolute least. Yugoslavia and Greece too, assuming France and Britain don't sell them out as a sop for Italian co-operation, with British clients in Iraq and Iran to complete the southern cordon. Let's call these the "White" powers.

Romania, Finland, and Turkey are a bit of a toss-up, since these are within Soviet reach during a German collapse. The former two are the most likely to be brought into Moscow's orbit, being German allies and with their political centers of gravity being so close to the borders, so I'll be generous and assume you get Communist governments in both; hell, let's throw in Romania regaining all her Vienna Awards territories from Hungary too. Turkey is more of a mixed bag: bordered by both Franco-British and Soviet territories, and the Straits easy to threaten by either the Black Sea or combined, Mediterranean -focused Franco-Italian fleet. Depending on how the dice fall, things could either go very very good (Leveraging the best deals and aid from both sides: possibly involving border rectifications in Western Thrace, Syria, and the Mosul regions in Ankara's favor alongside economic aid) or very very bad (Ending up the site of proxy wars and espionage/covert efforts by both sides... to say nothing of an actual hot war where both sides try to force the straits and start blowing eachother up just outside Istanbul) if Turkey decides to remain neutral, which I think is the most likely case considering how vulnerable they are if they lean too heavily towards one side or the other. This leaves the "Red" powers in Europe limited to the USSR, Finnish Socialist Worker's Republic, Socialist Republic of Romania, and maybe a Polish People's Republic/Eastern Poland assuming Stalin dosen't just keep the land as part of the USSR.

Meanwhile, in the Far East Japan's "Lesser" East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (Including itself, Manchuko, Inner Mongolia, whatever concessions they manage to carve out of China's corpse, and maybe the Phillipenes if the US liberates it on time as promised and the new government drifts into Japan's orbit) provides a firm Anti-Communist force aimed at the Russian Far East. What remains of China would probably be too much of a hassal for even the French, British, and Japanese combined to keep fully compliant without becoming a giant ulser, so I'll assume as long as the government isen't Red, keeps Mao and his comrad's power to tolerable levels, and provides basic protection and stability for Imperial and European property/businesses' profitability the Whites and Japanese will accept whatever the Chinese come up with. This means China needs to end its Civil War, lest that provide justification for further intervention (All the factions could agree to THAT, at least), so I'll say for the sake of having the least White-Imperial friendly government possible a cohalition in which the KMT plays a major (though not nessicerily leading, if their reputation gets the kibosh following their 'capitulation to the foreign devils': Chiang, at the very least, would lose enough prestige to be unacceptable as the head of the new government), alongside parties headed by the various regional warlords, members of Wang Jingwei's "reformed" government, and some pro-Western/Liberal elites from the coastal cities.

We'll assume such a state is at least a benevolant/sympathetic neutral towards the Soviets (seeing them as anti-Imperialist), but in all likelihood this China will try to cozy up as close as they can to the Americans if at all possible: after all, the Americans were the only ones who argued for Chinese interests through the whole process, including providing economic aid, even if it was too little too late. I'll even give the Soviets breaking off client states and the Nanjing Regeime not being too sore about it in, say, Mongolia and East Turkestan/Xinjang. Mao and his Reds, of course, aren't going to be an official part of the government: that's not something Japan will tolerate, but I could see them sneaking in as "Agrarian" parties and maintaining unofficial power in the countryside, maintaining friendly relations with the more anti-White and anti-Imperialist/Pro-Sovergeinity factions within the official government, maintining a more permenant "United Front". Weather or not this China would be stable, and how the various powers would play power politics within it, is something that I'd very much like to see other's opinions on and discuss: would the regional warlords be willing to acts as proxies for the Western Powers or Japan if it means power for themselves and more wealth for their cliques and provinces; buying the loyalty of "their" citizens in a kind African-esque spoils system? Are interests in China enough to drag America out of its isolationist stupor without the shock of the 2nd World War?

By the late 40's/early 50's, I see a world with three primary poles: in the best case scenario for the "Whites". First, a united European front, based around a center-right semi-Liberal "Responsable government" (With rights for the right sort of people; namely white, capitalist-minded individuals who respect traditional values, and slow change to ensure the masses are properly educated and uplifted enough to use their franchise responsably: after all, look what happened when you gave those Germans the right to pick their leaders. Obviously, we diden't spend long enough tutoring them in how to run a proper democracy), with Great Britain and France playingthe dominant roles with Italy acting as both a mediator and "morale motivator" for the two superpowers: co-ordinating a sub faction of more traditionalist-inclined states including at least Spain and Portugal. They would, naturally, maintain the traditional view of "The White Man's Burdan" and the natural superiority of Western European civilization (Though maybe not the white race, per say: though Nazism wasen't around long enough nor brought about the same level of utter destruction and genocide to quite taint the idea of scientific racism as much as it did in our timeline).

Second, the "Lesser East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", consisting off Japan and its clients, who have a more traditionalist hard-right, ultra-nationalist view. They would believe in the importance of economic autarky and the importance of harmony of purpose in society/ the health of the Kokka/Nation over the individual: or at the very least that economics/bussiness existed to serve and obey the government rather than doing the most good for society by being given freedom to act on their own with only some government interference and being allowed to advise the government in turn, as well as the government acting to support their interests (As the Europeans would see it: a mix between Italy's corporatism and British capitalism which placed the government and bussiness more as equal partners). While I can't imagine they'd be Asian supremacists and could hardly be totally anti-Imperialist they would carry the manner of "Asia for Asians!", perhaps promoting an idea of "Regionalism/'nation groups" where races ought to be considered "separate, but equal" (Though some groups within each race could be more equal than others: the Japanese were obviously appointed by provindence to lead the East Asians, the Angles best suited to lead the Germanic peoples, the Franks the Latins, etc. Where the Americans would fit into this framework, I don't know). Class divisions would, of course, be antithetical to this and lead to disharmony within the nation, and so would remainfundamentally anti-Communist, with everybody being expected to do their part / fill their assigned role in

This could go along well with the revival of Bushido, leading to a wholesale Neo-Bakufuism where everybody has a place in the celestial order. Hell, it would resonate with traditional Confusian ideals and the Hindu idea of castes/the Karmatic order pretty well too, and could be played as proof of the commonality and natural unity of Asiatic societies to Japan's advantage.

Third, you have the "Reds"/Commintern, made up of the USSR and her "Sister Republics". Obviously, they're Communists and (at least rhetorically) Moscow is going to be talking as such. They will, naturally, be anti-colonialist as a rule, since its the most crass and most exploitive form of capitalism (and is what gives their rivals so much of their power), and poo-poo the idea of nationalism since the worker ought to primarily identify with his class, and socialism's end result isen't supposed to have national borders... which could be spun quite well into a "Socialism in one country" narrative. Centeral planning and inter-regional co-operation would be seen as key, with different areas being specialized in producing different types of goods (Similar to the whole 'let's build one giant lightbulb factory in Latvia, and it can supply the whole USSR so much more efficiently than a lot of small factories acting in an uncoordinated manner'), focusing on providing for the people's material needs over such abstract and empty trinkets as "political rights" (Which of course includes building up the Red Army for the vital material need of security, so as to keep counter-revolutionaries at bay).

The US in such a scenario would likely still be isolationist, though doing its best to keep the sparring in the Western Hemisphere to a minimum. Not that it woulden't happen at all: meddling in South America will likely be tolerataed to some extent, but don't expect to see regime changes in, say, Nicaragua or Cuba. Nobody wants to get the US on their bad side, since she could swing the delicate international balance, and would recognize that while her vital interests are few, they are held very close to heart.

(Din's Red Earth that took awhile... though I'm quite happy with the end result. It's just one option though: there's plenty of points that could be debated here. EDIT: I think I'll actually make a map of what I think the world would look like tomorrow, just for the fun of it. )
 
Last edited:
ITTL 1973 oil crisis would have been butterflied and without huge destruction of WW2 you would see faster development of oil sector and much more oil consumption. So ITTL in 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s you would see more oil consumption and probably higher oil prices than OTL. Given USSR was the one of biggest oil exporter, I think Soviets would be better off economically thanks to more exporting oil and relatively higher oil prices.
 
The problems surrounding the annexation of the Baltic States was one of the immediate cataclysts for the fall of the Soviet Union iOTL alongside Poland's Solidarity movement. Of course, there are many other reasons the fall happened, but thr debate over the secret clauses of the M-R pact and the revelation of its existence destroyed Soviet legitimacy in the region. The Baltics became allies of Yeltsin as they sought to leave the Union.

In my opinion, for a collapse in around the same time as OTL, you need the Soviets to have the Baltic region and what became the Warsaw Pact. Alongside this, the economic problems of the SU must, of course, be present. Does avoiding the war really lead to the USSR solving its economic problems and its massive inefficiencies in their centrally-planned system? I don't think that avoiding the massive destruction of the OTL war, which is an unarguable good thing for the Soviets, affects these issues.

Basically, I would argue that if the Soviets avoid the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, thus leaving the Baltic States alone (or, worst case scenario for Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, they are annexed without any agreement between the Soviets and Nazis) and avoid any entanglement in East-Central Europe, they have a much, much better chance at survival. In my opoinion, the prestige and legitimacy hit from the rediscovery and admittance to the Secret Clauses did more to damage the Soviet Union than the end of the Warsaw Pact or even the economic issues (though both led to the Baltics seeking autonomy, then independence, which was the beginning of the end). It thoroughly discredited them and, especially, the Reformists, and empowered separatism and nationalism.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The problems surrounding the annexation of the Baltic States was one of the immediate cataclysts for the fall of the Soviet Union iOTL alongside Poland's Solidarity movement. Of course, there are many other reasons the fall happened, but thr debate over the secret clauses of the M-R pact and the revelation of its existence destroyed Soviet legitimacy in the region. The Baltics became allies of Yeltsin as they sought to leave the Union.

In my opinion, for a collapse in around the same time as OTL, you need the Soviets to have the Baltic region and what became the Warsaw Pact. Alongside this, the economic problems of the SU must, of course, be present. Does avoiding the war really lead to the USSR solving its economic problems and its massive inefficiencies in their centrally-planned system? I don't think that avoiding the massive destruction of the OTL war, which is an unarguable good thing for the Soviets, affects these issues.

Basically, I would argue that if the Soviets avoid the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, thus leaving the Baltic States alone (or, worst case scenario for Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, they are annexed without any agreement between the Soviets and Nazis) and avoid any entanglement in East-Central Europe, they have a much, much better chance at survival. In my opoinion, the prestige and legitimacy hit from the rediscovery and admittance to the Secret Clauses did more to damage the Soviet Union than the end of the Warsaw Pact or even the economic issues (though both led to the Baltics seeking autonomy, then independence, which was the beginning of the end). It thoroughly discredited them and, especially, the Reformists, and empowered separatism and nationalism.
Very interesting point about the Baltic states, Magyarorszag! :)

However, I would also like to point out that Georgia, Armenia, and Moldova likewise pushed for secession from the USSR even before the August 1991 coup attempt. Indeed, even if Moldova, the Baltic states, and Galicia aren't annexed to the USSR in this TL, you could still have separatist movements develop in Armenia and Georgia.
 
While the Soviet Union may be stronger, it also ends up being Public Enemy Number 1 for the rest of the world: after all, who was feeding the Nazi's all those raw materials and carved up Eastern Europe with them? Communism was already something of a boogeyman in the eyes of the world, and was only really put on the back burner because Stalin was more willing to back the European status quo while the Facists were trying to rock the boat.
Oh more than that, the communist parties of the west were under orders from Moscow to undermine the war effort and collaborate with the Nazis, something that only changed after the Germans invaded the USSR. If the Soviets stay out of ttl's WWII, then you can expect them to be more isolated and hated than they ever were in the 1920s.
 
Oh more than that, the communist parties of the west were under orders from Moscow to undermine the war effort and collaborate with the Nazis, something that only changed after the Germans invaded the USSR. If the Soviets stay out of ttl's WWII, then you can expect them to be more isolated and hated than they ever were in the 1920s.

Certainly: expect to see any political party too left of center economically to be tarred with accusations of being a Soviet sock puppet. Provided their enemies could dig up records that connected them to the Comintern/Moscow, it'd almost become a prerequisite for getting power in the West to condem the Soviets (Even if it was only for their authoritarianism and interventionism.) Very moderate Socialists/American Progressives or Liberal Corperatists are probably the furtherest left you'd be seeing in mainstream "White" politics.

Now, does that lead to an immediate Capitalist-Communist war? Not likely, since France and Britain put more stock in Stalin's survivability and power than Hitler ever did. But the Soviets aren't going to have any friends among nations that count except maybe, maybe a moderately warm relationship with certain factions within China.
 
WW2 changed Soviet demography-east Slavic population suffered heavier loses than Caucasians and Central Asians, so no ww2=more Russians within SU borders, also-if Soviets don't get Baltic States and Polish Eastern Borderland-they don't get the most troublesome nationalities. Western Ukraine was center of Ukrainian nationalism, having only central/eastern Ukraine, whatever country would succeed SU (some sort of Russian dominated Eurasian Union?) should be able to keep it. So at least in geographic sense Soviet Union could survive.
 
Stalin killed the Soviet Union with a very slow working poison by killing so many talented fear and terrorizing the survivors. In fact, I would argue WWII might have prolonged the Soviet Union. Barbarossa handed the communists a "bogeyman" for the next 50 years. People are much more willing to put up with intolerable things when they think the alternative is to be beholden to the enemy, particularly after their suffering at the hands of the Nazis. Plus, massive rebuilding projects like post WWII are tailor made for centralized planning where the populace will take anything quickly.
 
Stalin killed the Soviet Union with a very slow working poison by killing so many talented fear and terrorizing the survivors. In fact, I would argue WWII might have prolonged the Soviet Union. Barbarossa handed the communists a "bogeyman" for the next 50 years. People are much more willing to put up with intolerable things when they think the alternative is to be beholden to the enemy, particularly after their suffering at the hands of the Nazis. Plus, massive rebuilding projects like post WWII are tailor made for centralized planning where the populace will take anything quickly.

This. It was Stalinism that doomed the USSR.
 
Top