Weakest Possible Soviet Union

How can you make the Soviet Union even weaker than OTL for it to do worse during World War II? I remember reading once that had they have tried a pre-emptive strike against Japan, they might find themselves unprepared against Germany. Is it possible for the WAllies to capture all of modern-day Germany and liberate all of Korea and OTL's Warsaw Pact nations? Would the WAllies and the Kuomintang be able to liberate Manchuria before the Soviets can?

Bonus points for Japan being able to keep South Sakhalin/Karafuto and the US building military bases there.
 
Last edited:
they do not get their hands on gold reserves of Spain, border conflict turns into border war with Japan, Lithuania allies with Germany, becomes part of German sphere, thus not occupied by Soviets 1940

three fairly plausible events, with the last putting German invasion closer to Leningrad (for what that is worth)
 
Have Stalin go after the NCOs in his Purge.
In 1941 the Soviet military was screwed up in the mid and upper levels. Directly going after the NCOs would screw it up on a squad level worse than the trickle down fear did in OTL.
 
Last edited:
During the 1917 Revolution, have many more “republics” seperate from Russian rule: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, most of the Caucasus, most of the Muslim republics, Mongolia, etc. Have those newly independent countries form mutual-defence alliances (e.g. Baltic States Mutual Alliance) or align with larger capitalist states.
Ritalin and France provide serious support to these new countries. Maybe like - modern times - NATO troops routinely exercise in independent Eastern European countries. Their official excuse is that range time is less expensive in Eastern Europe.
 
they do not get their hands on gold reserves of Spain, border conflict turns into border war with Japan, Lithuania allies with Germany, becomes part of German sphere, thus not occupied by Soviets 1940

three fairly plausible events, with the last putting German invasion closer to Leningrad (for what that is worth)
Spanish gold was not so important for Soviet strength. USSR had some 2200 t in 1940/41.
 
Have the RCW go much much much worse for the Reds, have the war's conclusion end with White remnants straddling the peripheries in Crimea Southern Russia Arkhangelsk and the Far East with Ukrainian and Belarussian nationalists successfully forging their own states and a Red Army only just staves off total defeat. End with a divided Russia and an even more shattered nation to rebuild and you will probably have a very truncated USSR.
 
How can you make the Soviet Union even weaker than OTL for it to do worse during World War II?
The Soviets aren't able to take over the Caucasus with an independent Georgia, Armenia, and–most importantly of all–Azaerbaijan emerging. Without access to Baku oil it immediately retards their industrial and economic progress, it also means that they'll have to divert resources to develop the Urals-Volga oil basin as a replacement. Assuming that otherwise WWII happens roughly as in our timeline with the main Soviet oil fields being more to the east do the Germans make as strong a push to the south-east towards the Caucasus, and if not how might that affect things?

If you really want to weaken them then have an independent Ukraine with borders roughly similar to the modern day one emerge after the revolution. That however would take a lot of work.
 
Last edited:
Ritalin and France provide serious support to these new countries. Maybe like - modern times - NATO troops routinely exercise in independent Eastern European countries. Their official excuse is that range time is less expensive in Eastern Europe.

More independent states probably butterfly away WWII as we know it, otherwise a great idea.

(Historically Finnish forces, like Germans, used amphetamine, but I don't know if Ritalin would provide additional support for attentiveness. Imagine even deadlier Simo Häyhä, for starters... :) )
 
Like the idea of a butterfly netted scenario where the post-war Soviet Union is weaker compared to OTL, though what would be the best approach to take so WW2 ends in an allied victory in around 1943-1944 with Hungary and Czech Republic (possibly even Bulgaria) at minimum liberated by the WAllies? Especially if the battered Soviets somehow undergo a short period of post-war instability.

Many past threads have endlessly discussed / argued whether the Soviets receiving little to no lend-lease would have worked, along with somehow finding a way to reduce extent of reputed pre-war Soviet influence during the Roosevelt and Truman Presidencies which was alleged to have significantly altered Allied policies in favor of the Soviet Union (maybe Al Smith wins in 1928 helping the US recover from the Depression much quicker at cost of serving one term or someone else wins in 1932, so US recognition of the Soviet Union is delayed by a few years compared to OTL in 1933 under FDR).

Perhaps a neutral / later pro-Allied Italy would have made the "Southern Underbelly" invasion route more attractive in this scenario compared to the Normandy route (in addition to giving the Soviets a much harder time on the eastern front), which in OTL basically allowed the Soviets to gobble up much of Europe while the WAllies were busy with Normandy after retreating from Italy.

Otherwise interested to know what else would have been required to weaken the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Top