Post-Soviet Russian Revanchism Without the Fall of France 50 Years Earlier?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had France not fell in 1940 or later (as a result of France defending the Ardennes more and significantly improving its air force--including its leadership--in the pre-WWII years) and thus WWII would have ended with an Allied victory much quicker (perhaps in 1942-1943), and had the Soviet Union still eventually imploded and broken-up either in the very late 20th century or in the early 21st century due to its structural and economic weaknesses, what exactly would post-Soviet Russian revanchism look like in this TL?

Also, for the record, no Fall of France means that the U.S. very likely remains neutral in WWII and thus isn't as involved in Europe and in European affairs in the years and decades after the end of WWII.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For the record, I suspect that post-Soviet Russia would be much more aggressive in its revanchism if the U.S. wasn't heavily involved in Europe and in European affairs during this time; however, I am very curious to hear other people's thoughts on this.
 
Too difficult to say. If France does not fall, it is unlikely that we see Operation Barbarissa ITTL. The Soviet Union never endures the economic devastation of the Second Workd War, and occupies slightly more of Poland than it did IOTL. If the Soviets are involved in the war at all, it's as a conquering power that attacks Germany in 1941 or 1942, driving to the Elbe.

What happens after is anyone's guess. The Soviets are economically and demographically much better off than IOTL. I'm really not seeing why the Union would dissolve ITTL. If it still does, Ukraine and Belarus and the Balts and (maybe) Soviet Poland are also better off than IOTL and can resist better--they might even be nuclear-armed states.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Too difficult to say. If France does not fall, it is unlikely that we see Operation Barbarissa ITTL. The Soviet Union never endures the economic devastation of the Second Workd War, and occupies slightly more of Poland than it did IOTL. If the Soviets are involved in the war at all, it's as a conquering power that attacks Germany in 1941 or 1942, driving to the Elbe.

If the war lasts long enough, then Yes, completely agreed.

What happens after is anyone's guess. The Soviets are economically and demographically much better off than IOTL. I'm really not seeing why the Union would dissolve ITTL. If it still does, Ukraine and Belarus and the Balts and (maybe) Soviet Poland are also better off than IOTL and can resist better--they might even be nuclear-armed states.

Wouldn't the Union still implode for economic and structural reasons, though?
 
Wouldn't the Union still implode for economic and structural reasons, though?

I don't think so. I am of the opinion that the USSR's demise came as a result of runaway military spending (10% of Soviet GNP, in Gorbachev's time), in a nation far too small (in population and capital) to afford it. The impact of the Great Patriotic War on their demographics, and by extension their economy, should not be neglected. Unlike the West, they could not (or refused to) make up their low birth rate with immigration.

Without Barbarossa and a fifty-year arms race against the U.S., these factors are lessened considerably.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I don't think so. I am of the opinion that the USSR's demise came as a result of runaway military spending (10% of Soviet GNP, in Gorbachev's time), in a nation far too small (in population and capital) to afford it. The impact of the Great Patriotic War on their demographics, and by extension their economy, should not be neglected. Unlike the West, they could not (or refused to) make up their low birth rate with immigration.

Without Barbarossa and a fifty-year arms race against the U.S., these factors are lessened considerably.
Perhaps you are correct in regards to this; however, please keep in mind that the Soviet population increased from 200 million to 290+ million between 1956 and 1991 in our TL. Also, it is worth noting that the Soviet Union might still have some kind of arms race in this TL, but with the West in general (especially Britain, France, and perhaps eventually a reformed Germany) rather than with the U.S. in particular.
 
I don't think so. I am of the opinion that the USSR's demise came as a result of runaway military spending (10% of Soviet GNP, in Gorbachev's time), in a nation far too small (in population and capital) to afford it.

Soviet military spending was not "run away". It actually stayed pretty stable over the 70s and 80s (after declining after Stalin died).

Gorbachev used military spending as an excuse for the Soviet Unions economic problems because he could blame that on the West (i.e., they make us spend all this money to defend us, this is why you can't have nice things). It allowed Gorby to downplay the systemic factors behind Soviet economic troubles and avoid admitting to the public that the economic planners had just made plain wrong investment choices.

The impact of the Great Patriotic War on their demographics, and by extension their economy, should not be neglected. Unlike the West, they could not (or refused to) make up their low birth rate with immigration.

The Soviet birthrate was low for a country at its level of development, but it was higher than that of the USA for most of its history. It only declined badly when the economy imploded in the 90s.

Wouldn't the Union still implode for economic and structural reasons, though?

A Soviet Union that avoids the enormous costs and destruction of WW2 can spend those resources on growth and improving itself.

A Soviet Union that hasn't fought WW2 has a far higher population - about 400 million people by the 90s. More labour to throw at the economic problems of the Union means more time to turn the ship around.

Importantly, the Soviet Union hasn't lost most of the potential talent of the post-revolutionary generation. That in turn means they can maybe imagine a Socialist system that isn't Stalinism for the USSR in time before Stalinism inevitably hits the wall.

And not having the empire in Eastern Europe probably helps enormously. Eastern Europe was a net drain on Soviet resources and undermined Soviet political stability both when it did well and when it did badly since BOTH discredited the USSR in the eyes of Soviet intellectuals.

As such, I'd say Soviet collapse was much less likely without WW2.

fasquardon
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Soviet military spending was not "run away". It actually stayed pretty stable over the 70s and 80s (after declining after Stalin died).

Gorbachev used military spending as an excuse for the Soviet Unions economic problems because he could blame that on the West (i.e., they make us spend all this money to defend us, this is why you can't have nice things). It allowed Gorby to downplay the systemic factors behind Soviet economic troubles and avoid admitting to the public that the economic planners had just made plain wrong investment choices.



The Soviet birthrate was low for a country at its level of development, but it was higher than that of the USA for most of its history. It only declined badly when the economy imploded in the 90s.



A Soviet Union that avoids the enormous costs and destruction of WW2 can spend those resources on growth and improving itself.

A Soviet Union that hasn't fought WW2 has a far higher population - about 400 million people by the 90s. More labour to throw at the economic problems of the Union means more time to turn the ship around.

Importantly, the Soviet Union hasn't lost most of the potential talent of the post-revolutionary generation. That in turn means they can maybe imagine a Socialist system that isn't Stalinism for the USSR in time before Stalinism inevitably hits the wall.

And not having the empire in Eastern Europe probably helps enormously. Eastern Europe was a net drain on Soviet resources and undermined Soviet political stability both when it did well and when it did badly since BOTH discredited the USSR in the eyes of Soviet intellectuals.

As such, I'd say Soviet collapse was much less likely without WW2.

fasquardon
Two question:

1. Would the Soviet Union actually spend its saved resources (as in, the resources that it lost in WWII in our TL) on growth and on improving itself in this TL?

2. Wouldn't most of the Soviet Union's talented people from 1945 have already either retired or passed away by the 1980s and 1990s?
 
Would the Soviet Union actually spend its saved resources (as in, the resources that it lost in WWII in our TL) on growth and on improving itself in this TL?

Well sure. That was always what the USSR spent most of its resources on.

(Efficiency varied, but development was always the Soviet priority.)

Wouldn't most of the Soviet Union's talented people from 1945 have already either retired or passed away by the 1980s and 1990s?

They'd be the generation in power during the 70s and 80s - it would mean that the Soviet Union would be much less likely ruled by senile geriatrics during the 70s and early 80s and would be ruled by more experienced people in the late 80s (as well as the 90s, since the Gorbachev generation would have been more ready for power when the WW2 generation retired). The fast climbers of the generation would also be in place to influence things in the 60s, which might make the USSR a bit more liberal then.

The senile stage of the revolutionary generation (from the mid-70s to the mid-80s) was rather harmful really.

If Brezhnev had been bumped from power before he lost his smarts, he'd probably be remembered as a great leader.

fasquardon
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well sure. That was always what the USSR spent most of its resources on.

(Efficiency varied, but development was always the Soviet priority.)



They'd be the generation in power during the 70s and 80s - it would mean that the Soviet Union would be much less likely ruled by senile geriatrics during the 70s and early 80s and would be ruled by more experienced people in the late 80s (as well as the 90s, since the Gorbachev generation would have been more ready for power when the WW2 generation retired). The fast climbers of the generation would also be in place to influence things in the 60s, which might make the USSR a bit more liberal then.

The senile stage of the revolutionary generation (from the mid-70s to the mid-80s) was rather harmful really.

If Brezhnev had been bumped from power before he lost his smarts, he'd probably be remembered as a great leader.

fasquardon
Wouldn't the Soviet geriatrics have been hesitant to give up power?
 
I agree that a Soviet collapse may be less likely in the aftermath of the posited WW2, but less likely is not the same as won't happen. So the OPs question is still legitimate in that sense...
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
I agree that a Soviet collapse may be less likely in the aftermath of the posited WW2, but less likeky is not the same as won't happen. So the OPs question is still legitimate in that sense...
Yeah--basically I see three possible scenarios here (though certainly not with an equal probability of occurring):

1. The Soviet Union survives longer, manages to reform, and survives indefinitely.
2. The Soviet Union survives longer, fails to reform, and thus collapses, but later than in our TL.
3. The Soviet Union collapses on schedule.

Personally, I think that #1 and #2 are the likeliest scenarios here.
 
Wouldn't the Soviet geriatrics have been hesitant to give up power?

They were grooming successors to themselves in OTL. Just the successors were almost as geriatrics as the people in power, so most of them died in the early years of the 80s.

fasquardon
 
Top