The Allied Occupation of the Soviet Union

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Lately I've been playing a game called War Front: Turning Point, an WWII AH-themed RTS that pits the Allied and the German militaries against the Soviet Union. As can be expected, the game ends with Americans and Germans in Moscow and Stalin defeated. In the popular fiction of the Cold War, the theme of the Soviet Union being defeated in a conventional war is one that tends to appear again and again, if never that impressively.

However, this idea does raise an interesting AH scenario: suppose that the Soviet Union went after Europe in the 1940s, either pre-empting Hitler or by double-crossing the Allies in 1945. Furthermore, let's suppose that the Allies, rather than being driven off of Europe entirely, were able to hold on in Central Europe, rally their forces, and replay Barbarossa (competently this time), forcing the Soviets to surrender in Moscow. (To get the obvious question out of the way, no more than six atomic weapons would be used in this scenario, mostly against Soviet armies).

The question remains, then, where do the Allies go from there? Would there be an attempt of a Marshall Plan-style reconstruction of the former USSR? Would the whole country simply be de-industrialized and turned back to peasant agriculture? What would happen to the various SSRs no longer under any effective central government? How effective would de-communization be?

Thoughts?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

It largely depends on whether they plan to restore Russia to it's former size.

Depending on how hated/how many atrocities/gulags are found throug hthe war, you might see an artificial balkanization of the USSR and former Russia. Ethnic groups are giving their own nations, carved from the hulk of Russia. Ethnic russians may get a rump Russia of their own, or perhaps not.

One question is what to do with Siberia. On one hand, it's a frozen icebox. On the other, it has many resources and is rather unpopulated. Might a different political scene and alliances argue that Siberia might be partitioned up as colonies for interested powers, whether Japanese, British, or American?

 

[Anaxagoras]

An obvious thing to do would be to fully restore the Orthodox Church and perhaps even bring a member of the Romanov family to be a new Czar.

 

[King Thomas]

The Russians would be disarmed, made fully aware of Stalin's crimes, and industrialized properly and Russia becomes rich like West Germany.

OR

Endless partizan warfare like in Iraq making Russia a hell country to live in.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

An obvious thing to do would be to fully restore the Orthodox Church and perhaps even bring a member of the Romanov family to be a new Czar.

You try getting that one past the Americans.

 

[Agentdark]

Perhaps OTL 2007 Russia plus a few other areas like Belarus and parts of the Ukraine and Kazackastan are turned into a Russian Consituational Monarchy

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Perhaps OTL 2007 Russia plus a few other areas like Belarus and parts of the Ukraine and Kazackastan are turned into a Russian Consituational Monarchy

I think the Allies would restore the Soviet border as it was on January 1st, 1939, then give the republics independence (with the possible exception of the Karelo-Finnish SSR*, Kazakh SSR, and Tuvan Autonomous Oblast**). Other aspects to consider:

• What would happen to southern Sakhalin and the southern Kurils I don't know, a lot depends on what side Japan finds itself in. If it's a winner, they'll keep them and maybe even gain territory. If it's a loser, the allies may or may not transfer them to Russia.
  
• Finland would get back its old border and probably ask for Repola and Porajarvi, taken in 1918-1919 but given up in 1920. See here for the areas ceded by Finland after the Winter War (somewhat different from what they lost after WWII). (Hanko and Porkkala on those maps were only leased.) They might even get the Karelo-Finnish SSR.
  
• Latvia and Estonia would not only regain independence but also receive the border areas ceded to the Russian SSR in 1944-1945.
  
• The port of Taganrog on the Sea of Azov was given by the Ukrainian to the Russian SSR in 1924. This might be reversed. There's also the possibility of Crimea being transferred.
  
• Newly-independent Georgia may ask for the territory it lost after the Soviet takeover.

You have a minimal and a maximal solution. The minimal solution is present-day Russia without the Republic of Karelia, the Karelian Isthmus, Petsamo (Pechenga), Salla, the Gulf of Finland islands, Jaanilinn (Ivangorod), Abrene (Pytalovo), Petseri (Pechory), Taganrog, the coastal area around Sochi, a small Caucasian area on the Georgian border, northern Sakhalin, the northern Kurils, and Tuva. The maximal solution is present-day Russia without the Karelian Isthmus, Petsamo (Pechenga), Salla, the Gulf of Finland islands, Jaanilinn (Ivangorod), Abrene (Pytalovo), and Petseri (Pechory) but with Kazakhstan and Crimea.

An interesting possibility would be if the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Lithuania entered some sort of commonwealth with Poland.

*A Soviet republic between 1940 and 1956.
**The Tuvinian People's Republic, a small communist state between the USSR and Mongolia, was annexed in 1944.

Edit: A thought just came to me. Might Nationalist China get back Outer Manchuria? How 'bout Mongolia and Tuva?

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

I managed to find an excerpt from the "Dropshot" war plans the US developed in 1948 for a conventional/nuclear conflict responding to Soviet aggression. The piece I have below describes the basic outline for American goals in the postwar environment.

22. In the event of war with the USSR, we should endeavor by successful military and other operations to create conditions which would permit satisfactory accomplishment of U.S. objectives without a predetermined requirement for unconditional surrender. War aims supplemental to our peacetime aims should include:

a. Eliminating Soviet Russian domination in areas outside the borders of any Russian state allowed to exist after the war.

b. Destroying the structure of relationships by which the leaders of the All-Union Communist Party have been able to exert moral and disciplinary authority over individual citizens, or groups of citizens, in countries not under Communist control.

c. Assuring that any regime or regimes which may exist on traditional Russian territory in the aftermath of a war:

(1) Do not have sufficient military power to wage a war.

(2) Impose nothing resembling the present Iron Curtain over contacts with the outside world.

d. In addition, if any Bolshevik Regime is left in any part of the Soviet Union, ensuring that it does not control enough of the military-industrial potential of the Soviet Union to enable it to wage war on comparable terms with any other regime or regimes which may exist on traditional Russian territory.

e. Seeking to create postwar conditions which will:

(1) Prevent the development of power relationships dangerous to the security of the United States and international peace.

(2) Be conducive to the development of an effective world organization based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

(3) Permit the earliest practicable discontinuance within the United States of wartime controls.

From this, it seems that the Americans assumed the division of the USSR was a given, but that there's wasn't any concrete idea about how to go about it. Decommunization is certainly going to happen, but point C seems to suggest that the occupation will be geared more towards reducing Russia's military potential (and, presumably, its industrial capacity as well). Also, given the size of the territory being administered, and the fact that the Aliies would have just spent tons of money, resources, on manpower to win the war, I have a suspicion that the occupation won't accomplish much in the way of bringing stable administration (forget a European-style democracy) before public pressure forces the Allies to leave Russia and rebuiold their own damaged nations.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

From this, it seems that the Americans assumed the division of the USSR was a given, but that there's wasn't any concrete idea about how to go about it. Decommunization is certainly going to happen, but point C seems to suggest that the occupation will be geared more towards reducing Russia's military potential (and, presumably, its industrial capacity as well). Also, given the size of the territory being administered, and the fact that the Aliies would have just spent tons of money, resources, on manpower to win the war, I have a suspicion that the occupation won't accomplish much in the way of bringing stable administration (forget a European-style democracy) before public pressure forces the Allies to leave Russia and rebuiold their own damaged nations.

I'd be willing to bet that it would work something along the lines of giving every ethnic minority group its own nation and share of the USSR industry. If western Europe can be a patchwork of ethno-nationalities, why not Eastern Europe? There might be clashes in the future, but that isn't assured. Creating/resurecting new nations from a USSR that was beaten in battle will have a number of differances from the ones that popped from OTL's soviet collapse.

And while the European militaries might be under pressure to be withdrawn, there are a couple of factors that would keep occupation for a time.

First off, likely the US wouldn't have been directly attacked. So that's one non-devastated nation with much manpower.

Also, European nations could also recognize that saving money now could cost more later, militarily, economically, and politically. If things go bad because not enough was spent for occupation, the problems are obvious.

But there's also the question of influence in the new states if the western European nations don't contribute to their rebuilding. To take a modern example, remember the French fears of losing buisness interests in Iraq when they were shut out of the reconstruction, before it all went really down the hole? If it's perceived that the US bore the brunt of rebuilding Eastern Europe, western Europe might never live it down. What kind of chances for an EU-esqe European brotherhood movement to counter American influence when western Europe didn't even fix the damage it helped cause? I'd think that either foresighted or greedy politicians, take your pick, would ensure that their country spent as good a part in the post-war as it did during the war.

 

[joea64]

Decommunization is certainly going to happen, but point C seems to suggest that the occupation will be geared more towards reducing Russia's military potential (and, presumably, its industrial capacity as well). Also, given the size of the territory being administered, and the fact that the Aliies would have just spent tons of money, resources, on manpower to win the war, I have a suspicion that the occupation won't accomplish much in the way of bringing stable administration (forget a European-style democracy) before public pressure forces the Allies to leave Russia and rebuiold their own damaged nations.

I'm not certain decommunization is such a "given" as all that. Part of the quoted plan clearly entertains the possibility that a rump Communist regime, defanged of its military potential, might be allowed to survive on at least a portion of prewar Soviet territory. If the Allies were to set up a new regime in the occupied portion, that might create an interesting situation, possibly even leading to a place where the Communists might be able to rally under a nationalist banner (as Stalin did to good effect during OTL WWII).

-Joe-

 

[Shimbo]

I managed to find an excerpt from the "Dropshot" war plans the US developed in 1948 for a conventional/nuclear conflict responding to Soviet aggression.

I have a copy of Dropshot too, and IIRC it also states that there is very little chance of holding on to any of Europe (even Great Britain) in the face of a Soviet attack, let alone getting into a position to occupy Russia.

IMO, there is no post-WW2 PoD that would leave NATO in a position to occupy the USSR.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I have a copy of Dropshot too, and IIRC it also states that there is very little chance of holding on to any of Europe (even Great Britain) in the face of a Soviet attack, let alone getting into a position to occupy Russia.

IMO, there is no post-WW2 PoD that would leave NATO in a position to occupy the USSR.

That's a pretty large absolute, considering the state that the Soviet Union's conventional and nuclear deterents fell into over time.

When exactly was it that the Soviets weren't able to reliably fire their own nukes again?

 

[Douglas]

I have a copy of Dropshot too, and IIRC it also states that there is very little chance of holding on to any of Europe (even Great Britain) in the face of a Soviet attack, let alone getting into a position to occupy Russia.

IMO, there is no post-WW2 PoD that would leave NATO in a position to occupy the USSR.

You are certainly wrong about Britain...Sealion looks like the peak of plausibility compared to a successful, cross-Channel Soviet invasion of Great Britain in the 40s or 50s in the face of a tremendous NATO superiority in naval power and nuclear weapons.

I disagree with you entirely. I think a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would most likely result in a NATO occupation of Russia after a devastating war...the vaunted Red Army probably wouldn't do well under a hail of nuclear fire. Note that the era we're speaking of is the 40s and early 50s.

 

[Caesar]

I think that it would be interesting to see some maps depicting the various ways that the Soviet Union could be partitioned.

 

[Douglas]

I'm getting Curtis LeMay vibes from my last post...kinda scary, really.

 

[abas]

An interesting possibility would be if the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Lithuania entered some sort of commonwealth with Poland.

Given recent experience not very likely.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I'd be willing to bet that it would work something along the lines of giving every ethnic minority group its own nation and share of the USSR industry. If western Europe can be a patchwork of ethno-nationalities, why not Eastern Europe? There might be clashes in the future, but that isn't assured. Creating/resurecting new nations from a USSR that was beaten in battle will have a number of differances from the ones that popped from OTL's soviet collapse.

The Soviet Union was big and powerful. I don't know if the Allies could even win a war against it. But even if they do well and occupy Moscow they'd still have a long way to go (remember Napoleon). The territorial settlement will look more like Versailles than the Morgenthau Plan.

Besides, if the Allies are to have any chance they'll need to obtain the cooperation of Russia's more traditional elements. And as much as they may hate the communists, they're not going to agree to partitioning their country into 100 different states.

Given recent experience not very likely.

I didn't say willingly. And by commonwealth I meant something more like the British one than the old Polish-Lithuanian one.

 

[bastard of bodom]

I doubt that this scenario would ever take place due to the fact that the USSR did not have nuclear weapons and they would be too affraid to risk a confrentation with the USA. If the USA never developed the bomb then perhaps this idea is more likely to happen. However, if America didnt have nukes whos to say they would manage to defeat the USSR.

 

[Shimbo]

That's a pretty large absolute, considering the state that the Soviet Union's conventional and nuclear deterents fell into over time.

When exactly was it that the Soviets weren't able to reliably fire their own nukes again?

You are certainly wrong about Britain...Sealion looks like the peak of plausibility compared to a successful, cross-Channel Soviet invasion of Great Britain in the 40s or 50s in the face of a tremendous NATO superiority in naval power and nuclear weapons.

I disagree with you entirely. I think a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would most likely result in a NATO occupation of Russia after a devastating war...the vaunted Red Army probably wouldn't do well under a hail of nuclear fire. Note that the era we're speaking of is the 40s and early 50s.

That none of Europe was savable from an attack by the Red Army in the 50's isn't my opinion, its the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as evidenced by their war plan 'Operation Dropshot'. There was no 'hail of nuclear fire' available at the start of this era and Soviet conventional advantage was enormous.

Later than that, the problem is MAD - any major war would lead to a general nuclear exchange, after which, no one would be in any position to occupy anyone, which is precisely why there was a Cold War and not a Hot one.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

That none of Europe was savable from an attack by the Red Army in the 50's isn't my opinion, its the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as evidenced by their war plan 'Operation Dropshot'. There was no 'hail of nuclear fire' available at the start of this era and Soviet conventional advantage was enormous.

However, that's only the opinion of one side of a two-sided conflict. Didn't Stalin have his own opinion of the conflict, one where he felt the USSR would economically collapse during a war so soon after WW2? You can't just say "the US thought it couldn't win, therefor it wouldn't" when we have the advantage of hindsight. The General Staff was making predictions of a country they knew almost nothing about the inner workings of, while we can have the advantage of knowing what the Soviets thought as well.

So what did the Soviets think of a WW3, if they knew that there could be no "hail of atomic fire"?