An invasion would probably force a faster collapse too. No doubt Great Britain and the US would get involved. You are probably looking at a dogpile on the USSR. While it would be a tough slog, I think the Allies would come out on top evenutally.
What would the Soviet Union look like without WW2?
- Thread starter Julian
- Start date
An invasion would probably force a faster collapse too. No doubt Great Britain and the US would get involved. You are probably looking at a dogpile on the USSR. While it would be a tough slog, I think the Allies would come out on top evenutally.
Well, they may still attack Germany sometimes after secret negotiation with WALLIEs. They may cut German supplies after they will start feel strong enough. Definitely they will be stronger militarily and economically. But not morally of course. But without them in war carnage on western front will be so big that sometimes in 1943-44 WALLIES will probably beg Stalin to enter the war. Possible in 1944 WALLIES will just try to invade West Africa. without Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe in Russia, between 60-70 % of land forces and maybe something between 40-60% (I am lazy to look for exact numbers of deployment but I believe I am close) of Luftwaffe will be extra available to Defend Reich and for actions in Africa. I think that with USSR neutral, Wallies will be able to land in France sooner then in summer 1945. So bombs available in August may be dropped or Americans will be waiting for more available in September or October. Anyway, without USSR in war, Germans may put more resources in development of AA defense, development of fighter planes and maybe AA rockets. Lot of 88 mm canons will be in Reich instead of somewhere on Russians plains.
Depends when they invade. If at that time, let say late 1944 or middle 1945 WALLIEs will just invade in France and their opposition will be basically whole might of Wehrmacht, their entry into war will be more then welcome. If Soviets invade after Atomic bombing of Berlin, but before Germany surrenders, WALLIes will be pissed off, but after losses of pushing from France to Germany they will do nothing. Soviets in that case can get at least Poland, maybe Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary if Wallies will declare war on them as OTL. Czechoslovakia may stay or maybe not in western influential sphere. And Cold War will start right away.
The OP's question was how the SU would look without WW2. I assume that means that the war doesn't start, not that the Soviets don't get invaded, which is an interesting question too, but a different one.
Key issue: Why doesn't WW2 happen? If the Nazis don't take over Germany, that's very different from Hitler dies in June 1939, and his successor backs off from war over Poland. Let's minimize the other questions and say Hitler dies of natural causes in June 1939, before too much momentum for war with Poland has gathered. His successor, maybe Goering, pulls back from war.
Is there still a pact between Germany and the Soviets? Not the same one, of course, and any economic pact that was reached would probably be less favorable to the Soviets because the Germans would have other sources of the raw materials, at least until they ran out of hard currency.
Speaking of which, Germany would have to cut back on its rearmament in a major way without the loot from Poland, due to lack of hard currency.
The Soviets would probably stagnate without an immediate external threat to bring them together. Stalin's old cavalry cronies and associated "yes men" would continue to dominate the military, with no sharp military reverses to reveal their incompetence. Stalin would continue the purges at the lower, but by no means trivial level they operated at until World War II historically and resumed after it until Stalin's death. Would there be another Great Purge? Only if Stalin felt threatened, which was remarkably easy to produce, given his personal demons.
Assuming that Stalin lives until 1953, as historically, after his death the Soviets would probably liberalize somewhat, as they did under Khrushchev historically. One impact of no World War II at that point: the western border SSRs (Ukraine and ByeloRus) would have avoided taking the brunt of the World War II fighting, and assuming no more mass starvation episodes, they would emerge from the Stalin era (a) more economically and demographically powerful relative to the rest of the SU, and (b) Less tied to it by fear of attack from the West. Result, any move to liberalize would have to cope with stronger Ukrainian and ByeloRus nationalism.
Without World War II, I'm guessing that eventually Japan bleeds itself out in China, with the Soviets helping that process along. Does the Soviet Union eventually invade Manchuria? Under Stalin, probably not unless/until Japan is near collapse.
And then there is the question of A-bombs. No World War II probably equals no A-bombs until the 1950s. Who gets them first? The US would have the industrial capacity but little incentive in the absence of war. The Germans and Brits would have the scientists, but neither would have a lot of spare money. France? A contender, but probably not the first. The Soviets? A wild card. If Stalin got interested and stayed interested and didn't purge key people, the Soviets could potentially be first with an A-bomb, simply because they put massive resources into it and others stayed at research levels. Equally possible: a covert A-bomb race where several countries got A-bombs, but decided to keep them secret weapons in an effort to keep hostile countries from gaining the key knowledge that they were possible.
I'm skeptical about the ability of the fiercely nationalistic Europe before World War II to manage the transition to nuclear weapons without a war. Nukes would turn them into scorpions in a bottle, with even less warning time than the US and Soviets had during the Cold War. If the Brits or Soviets were first, maybe they could avoid war. Nazi Germany or the Japanese first? I would be very surprised.
Key issue: Why doesn't WW2 happen? If the Nazis don't take over Germany, that's very different from Hitler dies in June 1939, and his successor backs off from war over Poland. Let's minimize the other questions and say Hitler dies of natural causes in June 1939, before too much momentum for war with Poland has gathered. His successor, maybe Goering, pulls back from war.
Is there still a pact between Germany and the Soviets? Not the same one, of course, and any economic pact that was reached would probably be less favorable to the Soviets because the Germans would have other sources of the raw materials, at least until they ran out of hard currency.
Speaking of which, Germany would have to cut back on its rearmament in a major way without the loot from Poland, due to lack of hard currency.
The Soviets would probably stagnate without an immediate external threat to bring them together. Stalin's old cavalry cronies and associated "yes men" would continue to dominate the military, with no sharp military reverses to reveal their incompetence. Stalin would continue the purges at the lower, but by no means trivial level they operated at until World War II historically and resumed after it until Stalin's death. Would there be another Great Purge? Only if Stalin felt threatened, which was remarkably easy to produce, given his personal demons.
Assuming that Stalin lives until 1953, as historically, after his death the Soviets would probably liberalize somewhat, as they did under Khrushchev historically. One impact of no World War II at that point: the western border SSRs (Ukraine and ByeloRus) would have avoided taking the brunt of the World War II fighting, and assuming no more mass starvation episodes, they would emerge from the Stalin era (a) more economically and demographically powerful relative to the rest of the SU, and (b) Less tied to it by fear of attack from the West. Result, any move to liberalize would have to cope with stronger Ukrainian and ByeloRus nationalism.
Without World War II, I'm guessing that eventually Japan bleeds itself out in China, with the Soviets helping that process along. Does the Soviet Union eventually invade Manchuria? Under Stalin, probably not unless/until Japan is near collapse.
And then there is the question of A-bombs. No World War II probably equals no A-bombs until the 1950s. Who gets them first? The US would have the industrial capacity but little incentive in the absence of war. The Germans and Brits would have the scientists, but neither would have a lot of spare money. France? A contender, but probably not the first. The Soviets? A wild card. If Stalin got interested and stayed interested and didn't purge key people, the Soviets could potentially be first with an A-bomb, simply because they put massive resources into it and others stayed at research levels. Equally possible: a covert A-bomb race where several countries got A-bombs, but decided to keep them secret weapons in an effort to keep hostile countries from gaining the key knowledge that they were possible.
I'm skeptical about the ability of the fiercely nationalistic Europe before World War II to manage the transition to nuclear weapons without a war. Nukes would turn them into scorpions in a bottle, with even less warning time than the US and Soviets had during the Cold War. If the Brits or Soviets were first, maybe they could avoid war. Nazi Germany or the Japanese first? I would be very surprised.
Soviet intervention in China is likely if there is an early collapse of Nazi Germany. Japan has committed such atrocities they are unlikely to be supported by any allies and the nationalists remain unpopular with the people - a perfect place for Soviet expansion. If Molotov succeeds Stalin as Premier then you have a conservative figure who will do all he can to keep the Sino-Soviet Pact alive. The west will eventually gravitate towards some kind of agreement where Germany comes to terms with losing (twice) and formally joins the western community. While Italy will lead the third way fascist movement until sometime in the 1980s when fascism collapses. Countries like Japan, Indonesia and Iran will not be formally fascist, but find they have a lot in common with the third way politics.
You mean the guys who told the German High Command "Dude, there's about seven fuckloads of Soviet troops massing right across us, and they don't appear to be there for a picnic. We need to GTFO, like, yesterday, else they'll collectively buttraep us; oh, and where the hell are those AT guns you've promised?".
No WWII?
I think the Winter Wars would still go ahead, but with no WWII you could actually see the W/Allies giving more and more overt support to Finland. This would ramp up "Cold War" tensions between the USSR and Britain in particular. I think you'll also have a Japan/US War in the far East with the possibility of a Neutral Britain and Dominions, (although I could see Canada being as Neutral in this as the US were in OTL until Dec 7). This would result in a US Win pretty much as per OTL, but with more of a rift between the US and Great Britian due to a lack of alliance. If that happens, Canada will leave the Empire/Commonwealth by around 1960.
How would this affect the USSR? Industry and population wouldn't take the hit it did, but without the "Success" of WWII to help forge a national identity I think they're one, maybe two famines from complete collapse. Their industry could end up being hamstrung and it would be interesting to see how internal movement progresses and how much of an influence US trucks actually were. Standard of living may actually be about the same ITTL, quality of weapons for everyone would reduce as out dated theories that had not been discredited during WWII would continue to thrive.
I suspect you'd have Soviet "Advisors" along side the Chinese Communists, potentially in big numbers, and a closer PRC/CCCP alliance afterwards. I think the USSR would survive longer, possibly still be going now, but it would be unrecognisable compared to OTL.
I think the Winter Wars would still go ahead, but with no WWII you could actually see the W/Allies giving more and more overt support to Finland. This would ramp up "Cold War" tensions between the USSR and Britain in particular. I think you'll also have a Japan/US War in the far East with the possibility of a Neutral Britain and Dominions, (although I could see Canada being as Neutral in this as the US were in OTL until Dec 7). This would result in a US Win pretty much as per OTL, but with more of a rift between the US and Great Britian due to a lack of alliance. If that happens, Canada will leave the Empire/Commonwealth by around 1960.
How would this affect the USSR? Industry and population wouldn't take the hit it did, but without the "Success" of WWII to help forge a national identity I think they're one, maybe two famines from complete collapse. Their industry could end up being hamstrung and it would be interesting to see how internal movement progresses and how much of an influence US trucks actually were. Standard of living may actually be about the same ITTL, quality of weapons for everyone would reduce as out dated theories that had not been discredited during WWII would continue to thrive.
I suspect you'd have Soviet "Advisors" along side the Chinese Communists, potentially in big numbers, and a closer PRC/CCCP alliance afterwards. I think the USSR would survive longer, possibly still be going now, but it would be unrecognisable compared to OTL.
Well, I would say no Winter war at all. Stalin wouldn't risk it probably. He may try put some pressure on Finland and see what western countries would do, but if support is strong enough, he may actually settle for some deal with Finland.
As to US trucks. Well, Ford already built factories for Soviets in 30-ties. They may get some new licenses anyway. Their truck production was going up from early 30-ties till 1941.
To standard of living. I guess it may be a bit higher. Not much but a bit. Just look at quantity of houses and apartment building destroyed during the war. Collective farms destroyed ( I know they were not so much effective
)What could be interesting, that without war Stalin may even live longer (no stress from early defeats).
Actually all intelligence services, including Romanian and Hungarian, underestimated the scale and scope of Soviet offensive plans prior to Uranus. Soviet operational and tactical maskirovka was extremely effective.
IIRC a flight of IAR 37s spotted Soviet armoured elements moving to positions opposite the Romanian lines two days before the attack. Some guy at HQ (correctly) surmised that these were part of a greater force and quickly asked for an audience with the German High Command, who summarily dismissed all evidence as Romanian alarmism and pressuring (Romanians had been the most vocal regarding lack of proper AT support in their sector).
It was German arrogance and self-sufficiency which did in the whole jobbie.
This is certainly true, Axis tactical intelligence was usually excellent, but their operational intelligence failed completely. FHO (Foreign Armies East) along with 3rd Rumanian Army detected the concentration of some Soviet armored and infantry formations in the Seramifovich bridgehead, but failed to identify their parent formations or the full number of divisions deployed. 48th Panzer corps, though understrength, along with some infantry reserves were transferred to hold off what was believed to be a far weaker force than what actually existed. Axis intelligence missed completely the concentration of 5th tank army or 1st guards army, or the concentration of Soviet forces into assault positions until days before the offensive took place; by then it was far too late to transfer material. Further, Soviet strategic maskirovka caused FHO to believe that the strongest Soviet effort would fall against the Rzhev salient and Army Group Center.
The failure to detect the size and scope of the Soviet offensive was the result of not just German arrogance, which certainly existed, but of a concerted Soviet deception effort which achieved enormous success. German and Rumanian forces detected only some tactical concentrations, enough to warn of a future offensive but not enough to indicate the actual scale of Uranus.
Most of this I got from Glantz's book Soviet Military Deception in the Second World War.
^^^ Except Romanian HQ deduced that the brunt of Soviet forces would be directed against them, since it made (common, yet not-so-common) sense that one would attack an enemy's weaker points (especially if a successful assault helps envelop said enemy's stronger positions, which it did; Romanian positions were in the 'sweet spot': they were close enough to German positions that a Soviet breakthrough would roll them up, but spread thinly enough to make effective German assistance impossible), a detail the 'superior' German planners overlooked.
Last edited:
Rumanian intelligence failed to realize the scale of Soviet forces or their operational concentrations; 5th tank army, directly in front of Rumanian positions, was undetected save for several subordinate rifle divisions, as did German intelligence. Only days before the offensive did Soviet assault concentrations become noticeable, far too late for any effective response. Earlier Rumanian warnings were in fact heeded, as I said before, with 48th panzer corps and several infantry divisions transferred to their sector. But all Axis intelligence services failed to realize the size of Soviet forces deployed for Uranus.
It should also be noted that previously in the fall, in conjunction with it's Kotulban offensives, STAVKA had launched offensives against 4th and 3rd Rumanian armies with only minimal gains. This led to the German belief that the Rumanians were exaggerating their problems in order to obtain more equipment, which the Germans themselves badly needed, and would be able to deal with the Soviet offensive.
Ukraine and Belarus would be much smaller without the territory annexed from Poland. And the Baltic states would remain outside the USSR.
Soviet scientists began to speculate about the Bomb in 1939-1940, right after they heard about Hahn and Meitner's discovery of fission.
In 1942, Flerov, a young physicist then serving in the Red Army, wrote to Stalin about the possibility of this war-deciding weapon, and Stalin followed up on it. He quizzed some leading Soviet physicists - they told him the Bomb might be possible, but not in time to affect the war, and would cost a lot.
In the absence of WW II, it's possible that the USSR pursues the Bomb anyway.
Which nations would even try to build the Bomb? The cost would deter any democracy in peacetime. And what nation other than the USSR, and possibly Japan, could even hope to keep such a massive project secret?
Depending on how you define 'much smaller,' territorially yes. Given the enormous number of casualties and economic destruction in those border areas, I doubt that the populations and economies would be much smaller. It would be interesting to compare the number of deaths from military action and starvation in the borderlands to the populations of the conquered Ukrainian and BelaRus territories after the purges and battles.
And, of course, having considerable Ukrainian and Belarus populations outside the Soviet Union has it's own set of issues.
Agreed. Good chance they would put at least some research into it.
Even with the economic devastation of World War II, both England and France built the bomb in the 1950s. Granted, that's after the US proved feasibility, but the likely feasibility was understood by 1939-40 and every major European country other than maybe Italy had a research program. Those programs would undoubtedly take longer to make a bomb than our crash wartime one did, but given tensions on the continent they wouldn't just go away. My guess: First Atomic bomb is tested between 1948 and 1955. After that, either every European Great Power has them within five years of the first public test or there is a nuclear war in Europe within those five years.
Well the conquered territories had a population of 10-13 million depending on if you are talking about the areas annexed in 1945 or the areas annexed in 1939-1940.
The World War II casualties of Ukraine and Belarus (which had a combined population of 50.39 million in 1940; i.e. after the annexations) was a combined 9.14 million.
I would imagine that some of those losses were among the populations of the annexed areas.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Probably not, chances of rapprochement between the West and Japan during the Interwar Period are pretty slim. Japan is the new, ambitious power on the block. But Asia is already carved up, Japan cannot get what it wants as well as satisfy the West. Expansion into China threatens everyone's trade and traditional spheres of influence, expansion elsewhere threatens major colonies like Indochina and the East Indies.
The USA's embargo of Japan came about as a result of the conquest of Indochina, and earlier punitive actions had been taken for Japan's invasion of China. A confrontation is inevitable, and the West really cannot do much to back the Japanese up the USSR in any case, if the Soviets want Japanese-occupied Manchuria, they're going to have it.
The Soviets didn't do as well in the Winter War as they probably should have, nor did they do quite as well as everyone expects a major power to do against a primarily agrarian state.
That said, after they fired Voroshilov and put Timoshenko in, they broke the Mannerheim Line (i.e. the only thing keeping the Red Army from Helsinki) and quickly forced the Finns to peace. A peace in which the Soviet Union did get a good deal of the prewar demands it had made in the ultimatum to Finland. I wouldn't say they universally lost the Winter War, they did about as good (or rather, as poorly at first anyway) as any force in a horrifically cold winter (as in the kind where your planes can't fly from the cold) invading one of the most naturally-formidable landscapes in all of Europe.