If World War II never happens, how does the Soviet Union develop?

CaliGuy

Banned
If World War II never happens (for instance, by having Adolf Hitler get killed back in 1923), how does the Soviet Union develop?

I mean, obviously the Soviet Union would have avoided our TL's extremely massive World War II losses and everything that came with that. However, I have various questions about this TL:

1. In this TL, does the Soviet Union still eventually recapture some or all of the territories that it acquired between 1939 and 1945 in our TL?

2. What do Soviet relations with the rest of the world look like in this TL? Also, does Communism successfully spread to any other countries in this TL (and if so, exactly which countries)?

3. Is there more Slavic colonization of Central Asia and the Caucasus in this TL (due to the lack of WWII demographic losses)?

4. How does the Soviet Union handle the wave of decolonization which will eventually occur in this TL?

5. Does the Soviet Union still suffer from decades of economic stagnation in this TL?

6. Does the Soviet Union still collapse and break-up near the end of the 20th century in this TL?

Also, please feel free to list additional information and share additional thoughts about this scenario of mine. :)
 
My good guess is that the USSR would still have Stalin running things until his death of which would involve him lasting longer than OTL due to the lack of a world war in the 40's which IMO caused his health to decline; he probably would have lived to the 60's at best or maybe the 70's. That and it would end up ticking off more world powers and eventually getting them to somewhat get together in countering its influence more or less like OTL but with the addition of fascist powers and movements ITTL, which would end up being more competitive with communist movements. Perhaps the USSR would try to get some influence around Eurasia before it either implodes or gets into a war with one or two great powers that would enable a collapse of the country.

Other than those ideas, I don't have much to say since I don't know much of the USSR in the 20's and 30's.
 
I mean, obviously the Soviet Union would have avoided our TL's extremely massive World War II losses and everything that came with that. However, I have various questions about this TL:

1. In this TL, does the Soviet Union still eventually recapture some or all of the territories that it acquired between 1939 and 1945 in our TL?

It might get some territories but not such scale as in OTL. Stalin knew how risky that would be do without WW2.

2. What do Soviet relations with the rest of the world look like in this TL? Also, does Communism successfully spread to any other countries in this TL (and if so, exactly which countries)?

Relationships depends bit how USSR develops. But there wouldn't be Cold War anyway. Communism might spread to few other countries but not so wide-spreaded as OTL.

3. Is there more Slavic colonization of Central Asia and the Caucasus in this TL (due to the lack of WWII demographic losses)?

Probably. Them has go somewhere and Soviet leadership would be very pleased when it can russificate more territories.

4. How does the Soviet Union handle the wave of decolonization which will eventually occur in this TL?

Soviet leadership would support this.

5. Does the Soviet Union still suffer from decades of economic stagnation in this TL?

Depends how much longer Stalin lives and what happens after him.

6. Does the Soviet Union still collapse and break-up near the end of the 20th century in this TL?

It is possible. USSR might collapse anywhere between Stalin's death and 2017.
 
1. In this TL, does the Soviet Union still eventually recapture some or all of the territories that it acquired between 1939 and 1945 in our TL?
Anything of the sort would necessitate some form of WWII, even if it isn't OTL's. A League of Nations vs USSR war could be interesting to read about.

2. What do Soviet relations with the rest of the world look like in this TL? Also, does Communism successfully spread to any other countries in this TL (and if so, exactly which countries)?
Does the war in the Asia-Pacific still happen? If so then there's a good chance of Mao coming to power in China, and OTL's spread of communism through South East Asia.

3. Is there more Slavic colonization of Central Asia and the Caucasus in this TL (due to the lack of WWII demographic losses)?
Certainly more in northern Kazakhstan, but I'm not sure how many Russians would want to settle in the desserts of Turkmenistan as opposed to say the Russian Far East.

4. How does the Soviet Union handle the wave of decolonization which will eventually occur in this TL?
Probably not too different than it did OTL.

5. Does the Soviet Union still suffer from decades of economic stagnation in this TL?

6. Does the Soviet Union still collapse and break-up near the end of the 20th century in this TL?
I'll answer these two questions with five of my own. Does the USSR continue to focus on heavy industry? Does it retain the fairly inflexible system of 5 year plans? Does it adapt to the information age ITTL? Does the economy still become dependant on oil exports? Does the USSR still get in a spending race with a much richer country?

Also, please feel free to list additional information and share additional thoughts about this scenario of mine. :)
I'm serious about that LoN vs USSR war thing, think about how much drama you could get out of just whether or not the League allows (Weimar) German rearmament in the face of Soviet aggression.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
A League of Nations vs USSR war could be interesting to read about.

An occasion for such a war between the League of Nations and USSR could come from the Sino-Soviet fighting in 1929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_conflict_(1929).

If China makes an appeal for League of Nations assistance and major member states respond we could have a situation where ironically the Japanese are a major component of any League of Nations blessed coalition aiding China against the Soviets.
 

PlasmaTorch

Banned
That hasn't been backed up by the historical record, nor your link.

Its not 100% proven, no. But there are indications it might have happened.

In any case, the more interesting question is would pacifism from the nazis embolden or discourage the USSR?
 
In any case, the more interesting question is would pacifism from the nazis embolden or discourage the USSR?

A pacifist Nazi Party isn't a Nazi Party.

Anyway, the big question here - how, exactly, are you preventing WWII? Are we looking at a smaller scale European war, or no war at all? What's the POD?
 

PlasmaTorch

Banned
A pacifist Nazi Party isn't a Nazi Party.

You've got a point there. Glorification of war and conquest was practically built in to the party. Even if hitler was a pacifist (which he manifestly wasn't), its doubtful that he would have been able to restrain his country from aggressive expansionism. If the nazi party exists at all, its going to destabilise europe and eventually lead to war.

Anyway, the big question here - how, exactly, are you preventing WWII? Are we looking at a smaller scale European war, or no war at all? What's the POD?

I wasn't trying to create a scenario, I'm just saying that without nazi germany, stalin might be tempted to do a 'great leap forward' in the rest of europe. Thats by no means a given, though.
 
I've read around here that WW2 gave the Soviet Union a one-generation lease on life, by rising up a population shaped by the Great Patriotic War. I wonder if that means that it would have become shakier sooner - like, in the Sixties'/Seventies' - without WW2. It would have been stronger, sure; but more stable?
 
1. In this TL, does the Soviet Union still eventually recapture some or all of the territories that it acquired between 1939 and 1945 in our TL?

Unlikely. Stalin's extreme cautiousness means that he isn't grabbing any territory if the rest of Europe isn't previously distracted.

2. What do Soviet relations with the rest of the world look like in this TL? Also, does Communism successfully spread to any other countries in this TL (and if so, exactly which countries)?

China's a possibility, depending on how things with the Japanese and Mao and Chiang turns out. So could some of the decolonization (see below).

3. Is there more Slavic colonization of Central Asia and the Caucasus in this TL (due to the lack of WWII demographic losses)?

Possibly.

4. How does the Soviet Union handle the wave of decolonization which will eventually occur in this TL?

Without the reputation it's influenced will be dimmed. Still, as a model alternative to the capitalist west which at least some of the former colonies would like to get away from it would likely still pick up some influence.

5. Does the Soviet Union still suffer from decades of economic stagnation in this TL?

6. Does the Soviet Union still collapse and break-up near the end of the 20th century in this TL?

The lack of war damage, particularly in the demographics, do push the odds down but the fundamental problems remain. So I'd say it's more possible then OTL but still not remotely a sure thing.

That hasn't been backed up by the historical record, nor your link.

Given PlasmaTorch's history, I'm not surprised he's peddling Suvorov-esque nonsense...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Given PlasmaTorch's history, are you really surprised he'd peddle Suvorov-nonsense?
First time I've encountered him.

I've read around here that WW2 gave the Soviet Union a one-generation lease on life, by rising up a population shaped by the Great Patriotic War. I wonder if that means that it would have become shakier sooner - like, in the Sixties'/Seventies' - without WW2. It would have been stronger, sure; but more stable?
I've heard the theory, not sure if it is necessarily true, arguably it also delayed a crisis in capitalism too due to the years of economic growth stemming from the war destruction. The Brezhnev stagnation happened at the same time Nixon shocks too.

Stalin would probably live longer and potentially do more damage over a longer time frame. Though the USSR would more likely than not have been better off without WW2; if you look at the economic growth of the USSR post-WW2 it never gets back to the trajectory that it had pre-WW2, while for all the western states growth is higher post-war than pre-war. Perhaps the Soviet people wouldn't have been nearly as tolerate of shortages and political repression without WW2, but Stalin seemed like the guy that would make them tolerate it...or else. Perhaps post-Stalin there isn't a softening of the regime out of fear of collapse? The Germans would still be a powerful threat to the west, as would the Japanese in the East. Fascism might still be trucking on and keep to a more anti-comintern stance than IOTL rather than soften with a Molotov-Ribbentrop deal if there is no invasion of Poland.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

Any question of Stalin launching his own invasion of Europe should be counselled against the actual events regarding Poland and Finland and the threat posed by a Nazi Germany, pick at the later and you can assume he only had conquest at heart, but he might just be an opportunist. I would offer that Stalin was aggressive in the face of weakness, put strong opponents in his path and he took other paths. I suspect he was revanchist too but he only takes what he can get on the cheap, best if he can get the locals to do it for him, so I think the USSR stays the path of supporting revolution when it crops up. One can conjure fertile ground for Stalin in infinite variety.

My inner pessimist says that it just totters on as corrupt and deluded as ever, the Party elite living well behind the threat from their secret police, the planned economy never achieves its goals and they bankrupt the whole thing. Once Stalin dies it is a power struggle and likely won by the most vicious one, the ideology of revolution never lets the USSR engage the west until it is far too late, but the toss up is whether without the legitimacy bought by the war the Party can hold on or if the great wealth of Russia lets it buy yet another decade of just good enough. My opinion would be that after Stalin's rule the USSR cannot truly survive any loosening of the shackles. Unless you put the technocrats in power then it goes like China, a veneer of Communism to justify one-party rule but an essentially capitalist state, I think that is the conjecture of having Zhukov and Khrushchev in power. So maybe the war did give it a full generation of life before the change, whatever that happens to be, near instant collapse or a new model of window dressing.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I agree with MichaelWest that "conquering Stalin" is not inevitable, and that it is actually rather unlikely without the permissive and stressful geopolitical circumstances created by WWII.

I think, unless provoked badly by Japan, the Soviet Union is probably going to keep its own powder dry till the 1950s or later. It would have reason to fear a powerful anti-Soviet coalition if it tries to revise any of its borders in Europe or the Middle East. Finland, Poland, Romania and Turkey are all substantial countries. Even the Baltic States would likely be safe from invasion through 1950 and beyond, because grabbing one of them still could cost more than it is worth in terms of generating possible backlash by larger powers.

After about 1950 the situation probably gets more permissive for Soviet aggression in Europe. By 1950, the Soviets will be *much* more industrialized, having gone through four and a half five years plans, and under mid 20th century conditions this is probably going to widen the Soviet advantages against its immediate western neighbors, and even Germany, quite a bit. Another factor potentially making the environment for Soviet aggression more permissive later in the 1950s or 1960s could be the development of atomic weapons and delivery systems.

Even if, as is likely, the USSR is not the first atomic power, and the US, Britain, France and Germany all achieve that status before the Soviets, the Soviets going to be far ahead of any of their immediate western neighbors. An atomic shield, in an era of relatively unilateral-ized military policies and no NATO-style guarantees, could embolden Moscow to use brute force to achieve some revisionist territorial aims.

Alternate conditions besides WWII that could prompt the Soviet Union to expand its territory in the 1940s could include grabbing Bessarabia if Bulgaria and Hungary end up at war with Romania, without German participation. Or limited gains could be made against Poland in the context of a Polish-Lithuanian War, Polish-Czech war, or war amongst the Baltic states, or Turkish involvement in war against another great power. Of course gains against Poland are possible in the event of a less than total German-Polish war that does not involve other major powers. A successful revolutionary movement or disorder so extreme in a neighbor that makes a modest military fait accompli look super easy could also tempt Stalin.
 
Top