Who would be the USA put in charge after they conquered the USSR in the 1950s

Also, population transfer was considered as an acceptable solution to the problems of ethnic conflict until relatively recent times.

I dont think that expelling all Russians from Ukraine is feasible, even if there is a nationalist Ukrainean government I think assimilation not expulsion would be tried.

On the other in the Baltic States, since this in the stalinist/early post-stalinist epoch, and relatively few Soviet Russians have settled there, combined with the deportation of Estonians,Latvians and Lithuania conducted by Stalin, would be probably see the expulsion of Russians which after 1940/1945 and the return of the deportees from Siberia and Central Asia.
 

E.Ransom

Banned
We seem to have lots of threads about nazi and soviet puppets, but what about the reverse, if the USA manages to conquer the USSR in the 1950s who do they put in power?
The old white exilants? Turncoat communists? Or somebody else entirely?

I'm sorry, but...
Conquering the USSR is entirely impossible. The post-WW2 makeup of Europe was designed so that the kind of "surprise" attack that could hit hard enough for any kind of terms to be imposed on the USSR, would be impossible.
In order to conquer the USSR, the US Army would have to pretty much single-handedly (since free Europe's armies were nowhere near ready for that kind of gargantuan task) conquer all of Eastern Europe first, before going into the USSR itself.

It's entirely impossible without some kind of deus ex machina-event, and thus, the premise of the OP's question is false.
 
I'm sorry, but...
Conquering the USSR is entirely impossible. The post-WW2 makeup of Europe was designed so that the kind of "surprise" attack that could hit hard enough for any kind of terms to be imposed on the USSR, would be impossible.
In order to conquer the USSR, the US Army would have to pretty much single-handedly (since free Europe's armies were nowhere near ready for that kind of gargantuan task) conquer all of Eastern Europe first, before going into the USSR itself.

It's entirely impossible without some kind of deus ex machina-event, and thus, the premise of the OP's question is false.

On this same forum we have questions about the USA under Nazi or Soviet rule, and those are both equally imposible.

This is a hypothetical to see how a NATO/USA would treat a defeated USSR, the main reason is to analyse USA occupational behavior not to create a plausible timeline. So consider that the conquest happend by act of God/Zeus/Ammon-Ra or whatever you believe in.

By the same reasoning should all questions about UK/USA/Africa/The Moon under nazi rule be dissmised.
 

Rex Mundi

Banned
On this same forum we have questions about the USA under Nazi or Soviet rule, and those are both equally imposible.

This is a hypothetical to see how a NATO/USA would treat a defeated USSR, the main reason is to analyse USA occupational behavior not to create a plausible timeline. So consider that the conquest happend by act of God/Zeus/Ammon-Ra or whatever you believe in.

By the same reasoning should all questions about UK/USA/Africa/The Moon under nazi rule be dissmised.

This sort of attempt to bypass plausibility is frowned upon, mostly because it renders discussion impossible. What you're basically saying is, "Analyze this situation, but I only want the analysis, fuck coming up with a possible situation let alone explaining it." That's not how an analysis works. How can you possibly "analyze USA occupational behavior" when we don't know how the occupation came to be and therefore how they're going to behave? It's like giving somebody a multiplication problem and not letting them see the numbers because you only want to analyze the problem, not the numbers themselves.

Edit: But to answer your question, I assume the occupying army would do exactly what God/Zeus/Ra told them to. They're gods, after all.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's ASB, but 2 possible scenarios I can come up with off the top of my head are:

1) The Berlin Blockade turns into a shooting war and the US re-mobilizes and eventually finishes off the USSR; or

2) one of the East European revolts (e.g. E Germany 1953 or Hungary 1956) escalates and leads to western intervention and NATO wins.
 
1) The Berlin Blockade turns into a shooting war and the US re-mobilizes and eventually finishes off the USSR; or

How would the U.S. "finish off" the USSR assuming that the Berlin Blockade/Airlift escalates into a war, while taking into account that the Red Army's post-1945 presence in Europe was significant.

As other posters have previously mentioned, beating and occupying the USSR would require that U.S./NATO forces seize eastern Europe as well.

A feat which is IMHO impossible more or less.

2) one of the East European revolts (e.g. E Germany 1953 or Hungary 1956) escalates and leads to western intervention and NATO wins.

Even if one of these revolts led to NATO intervention, this scenario would still require that eastern Europe be taken over and/or neutralized as a threat before an actual invasion and occupation of the USSR could go ahead.

the Red Army's presence in eastern Europe alone prevents an invasion of the Soviet Union, and occupation certainly isn't plausible and IMHO such an occupation would be almost impossible to maintain in the long run.

This sort of attempt to bypass plausibility is frowned upon, mostly because it renders discussion impossible.

Agreed. An alternate history, however long or short, should at the very least be consistent and progress logically for a true discussion to take place.

The scenario suggested by the OP seems more like fantasy IMHO then alternate history (then again, one could argue that fantasy and AH can be combined, as they sometimes are)

The Man In The High Castle and Bring The Jubilee, two wildly unrealistic alternate histories (unrealistic on purpose, that is), stayed consistent and were logical as stories and as alternate histories.

So no, one cannot simply say "assuming that the US conquers and occupies the Soviet Union, then..." as there is no basis IMHO for such an occurrence outside of pure fantasy.

Rant over. :)
 
This sort of attempt to bypass plausibility is frowned upon, mostly because it renders discussion impossible. What you're basically saying is, "Analyze this situation, but I only want the analysis, fuck coming up with a possible situation let alone explaining it." That's not how an analysis works. How can you possibly "analyze USA occupational behavior" when we don't know how the occupation came to be and therefore how they're going to behave? It's like giving somebody a multiplication problem and not letting them see the numbers because you only want to analyze the problem, not the numbers themselves.

Edit: But to answer your question, I assume the occupying army would do exactly what God/Zeus/Ra told them to. They're gods, after all.

Why be so difficult with this particular thread and not the ones that started the trend? I don't get the selectivity.
 
Constitution...

I don't think the constitution would be written, even in part, by Russians, any more than the Japanese constitution was writen by Japanese. They might have input, but in the end, the document would be finalized by the USA. It's only in more recent times that you get things like conquered Iraq writing its own...
 
In Ukraine alone there was more than 4 million Russians. In Southern Caucasus 1 million Russians. Being cleansed 5 million Russians.
You are joking right? :eek:

I think any "ethnic cleansing" (which will be population transfer, not killing) would be limited and mostly restricted to Russians who moved into areas after occupation by the Soviet Union (like the Baltic states), not long term inhabitants like Russians in eastern Ukraine.

Most likely any new states in Belarus, Ukraine, etc. would determine for themselves whether to keep the areas where there are large Russian minorities. Some areas may simply be transferred to the new Russian state, some areas given a plebiscite to determine where they go, and other areas retained as is or with population transfer to occur beforehand.

Most likely, it will not be the Americans, British, or French deciding this, but the newly independent nations themselves under supervision of any Allied control authority.

At worst, you may have population transfers in the hundred of thousands, not millions. Not too different from redrawing the borders of WWI most likely.

I think a large part of any Allied victory plans would be to provide the basis of a stable peace, not a Carthaginian one, so the Western allies are likely to limit any population transfers to those areas where Russians are seen as new occupiers, not native inhabitants.
 
This gets thrown around all the time. I hope people are aware of just how little documentary evidence there is for anything like that outside of personal recollections mostly recorded 30-40 years after the fact.

The raping or the C-rations? Or both?
 
Top