Nah, you are being overly pessimistic. Russia was growing at Chinese rates before WW1. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be better had they avoided all the economic hardships and mass death causes by the civil war, communism and the Nazis.
That is... very optimistic.
I'm not certain that would happen. You've got to remember that the Russian Empire was in really, really bad shape in the 1900s, so there would be a shittonne of rebellions, which would be put down rather harshly. Imagine a handful of 1905-level events between 1930 and 1960.
And wevare assuming no additional wars with say china or japan, poland or even a german round 2 for what ever reason.
My preferred point of divergence would be to replace the 1902 OTL Anglo-Japanese alliance with a Russo-Japanese alliance, with Russia getting Manchuria and Japan getting the Korean peninsular - together harvesting China. If the above is too early, then a comprehensive understanding between Russia and Japan reaching a substantially similar outcome - perhaps with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance lapsing in 1905. This provides protection for Russian interests in the east, while increased rivalry with Britain, checks Russian adventurism in the west. This essentially butterflies away WW1.
The rapid rate of OTL industrialization of Russia was one of the key reasons to the unrest within Russia, so why would it stop after a victorious war?
Just like the Tibetans, Uighurs and Chechens did. Independent Poland, Finland and the Baltic states were a result of very unlikely and particular chain of OTL events.
Err no. Russia had the fastest growing economy in the world and was already the fifth largest industrial power on the eve of the great war. Between 1888 and 1913, Russia's industrial economy was growing at an average of 6.1%, as fast as during Soviet times, but without sabotaging agriculture that lead to famines, or forced labour. Also, the October Revolution put the country far behind what it could have achieved, and growth did not resume till the late 20's. In addition, while GNP per capita of the USSR increased, productivity actually decreased. So a lot of the growth that the Soviet Union achieved only compensated for the loss from the civil war and October revolution.
This is just wrong. Russia's fertility rates, which were one of the highest in the world, collapsed following the October Revolution and fell deeper as collectivization proceeded. Russia's population in such a world would have been twice or thrice the population of OTL. Remember, even if Stalin did not necessarily accelerate industrialization or economic growth, he did accelerate urbanization, which decreases fertility rates.
A victory doesn't often mean mass change to a situation. Russia would have no real push to industrialise if it won the war (they'd be too busy keeping their new lands in line)- and it was industrialising slowly anyway, compared to OTL USSR.
Two facts to be considered here.
For Russian Fascism as a separate discussion though, the only real opportunity for a movement like that was among the Cossacks and the younger officers class active in the White Armies of Denikin and Kolchak who saw that the hopeless reactionarism of their fathers was too anachronistic to win the war against the Bolshevik, and were as you say "purified in the bloodbath against the evils of Bolshevism" through their experiences in the Civil War. I stumbled across some comments made by Peter Kenez in his paper "The Ideology of the White Movement" that discusses Russian Fascism which I saved in my notes:
"It is hard to make out a case for describing the Volunteer Army as fascist. Modern methods of communication, so necessary for a fascist style of mass mobilization, did not exist. Dislocation and profound cultural despair, characteristic of recently industrialized societies which prepare willing recruits for radical movements, were also absent. However, there was an important segment of the counter-revolutionary movement to which fascism might have had an appeal. This segment was the Cossacks, whose contribution to the White cause has never been properly appreciated by historians. The existence of a Cossack estate in the beginning of the 20th century was something of a paradox. The Cossacks, who were richer and better educated than most Russian peasants, possessed a pride in their way of life and a memory of autonomy, which made them the most 'modern' group within Russia. At the same time they enjoyed feudal privileges, cherished medieval customs and believed that their material interests were hurt by the changes occurring in a slowly modernizing society. They joined the White cause above all because they were determined to defend their lands from the land- hungry Russian peasants. Significantly, two decades later Hitler found many more collaborators among them than among other segments of the Russian people. In Ataman Krasnov they found a suitable spokesman. He was a master demagogue and adept at creating a mythical past for the Cossacks. But Russia had only a few million Cossacks. It is hard to see how Krasnov's type of vengeful rightist radicalism would have found a large enough social base among the peasants to come to power. Generals Alekseev and Denikin, the two men who did most to develop a political programme for the Volunteer Army were conservatives. Compared with the vast majority of their followers, they possessed a degree of political sophistication and tolerance. Consequently, if we form a judgement on the basis of the public statements of the Army, we must conclude that it was a conservative organization.
However, the officers who joined the movement in the beginning of 1918 and continued to play a dominant role in it until its final defeat, were young, profoundly embittered by their recent experiences in the Revolution and drawn to radical solutions. Especially after Alekseev's death in the autumn of 1918, Denikin was constantly under attack from the right; his followers wanted him to pursue reactionary policies. In April 1920 Denikin had to go into exile and his successor, General Wrangel, was a candidate of the right. To be sure, Denikin lost out in the power struggle largely because his armies had suffered defeats; nevertheless it is clear that his position had been greatly weakened by political disagreements. If we judge by the sentiments of the majority of the officers, and on the basis of the policies which the peasants actually experienced at the hands of the Volunteer Army, we should consider the White movement a reactionary phenomenon. The majority of the peasantry was right to distrust the promises and public statements of the Whites."
...also the rabid anti-semitism
If the Whites had won the Civil War (I have my own thoughts on the likelihood of that succeeding though), I could certainly see a vengeful and embittered young officer class, backed up by Cossack support, forming parties and fraternal organizations that could lead to a movement on the fringes of classified fascism. Sort of like the pseudo-fascism/proto-fascism of Franco and the Falange Española de las JONS, that is largely a reactionary movement with elements of fascism and the aesthetics of fascism mixed in. That's outside the scope of this discussion, but would make an interesting timeline or discussion thread in my opinion.
This is at least the third time you've reposted this. No problem with that, it's a reasonably good post, but I don't think it quite works in this context.
Ah yes, the bomber gap folks. Well known for never overestimating America's adversaries.
Here's the thing though, no civil war and no loss of territory. So, assuming 1913 values in 1918, resuming 3.3% per year gets you 459,463 million 1990s USD in 1939. Which is higher than the historic values for the USSR.
See this is the problem with whole sale reposting things without any edits for the context of the conversation. You'd have a point if the discussion was about a white regime which could be expected to lose at least that much territory as well, but an intact Russian Empire doesn't have this issue.
Which is basically what Imperial Russia's railroad building and military modernization schemes were.
Hitler gets bent over a table by France if he goes east and bent over a table by Russia if he goes west.
Again, this is a fine point for discussing White Russia, it doesn't work for a victorious Russian Empire.
