WI: Smaller Soviet Union that's basically just Russia and Kazakhstan?

[leopard9]

What I mean is let's say that after the Bolsheviks decisively win the Russian Civil War, they content themselves with the borders of modern day Russia and Kazakhstan with the addition of Crimea and the Donestk so that the Sea of Azov becomes a Russian lake and there's a natural land bridge to Crimea. Would that lead to a more powerful Soviet Union/Russia in the long run as they'd have a smaller (though still massive) territory to invest in and modernize? I know Ukraine is very valuable as an agricultural resource, but Russia with what's effectively the Donestk region ITTL would still have a large chunk of that valuable soil.

So, how does a smaller Soviet Union that's really just Russia, Kazakhstan, Crimea, and the Donestk region of Ukraine do from the end of the Russian Civil War all the way through World War Two and the start of the Cold War? Is Barbarossa as successful as it was IOTL? Does Russia end up having a stronger economy? What are its relations like with the West and Germany prior to World War Two?

 

[sarge]

The central Asian SSR's aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, so I'll focus on eastern Europe. Ukraine and Belarus were the most important, most industrialized and most highly populated SSRs after Russia. However, they were mostly industrialized by the USSR and had mostly agrarian economies much like Russia did before the Revolution. The loss of the extra population will hurt the USSR, and it will be unhappy that its borders aren't as far west as it would like. Ukraine and Belarus were considered to be traditional Russian lands. The USSR will try to get them back by any means necessary and will go to war to seize them if they must, a war that they would win.

This ATL Soviet Union's economy will be weaker, with a smaller population and lack of the Ukrainian grain exports. A hypothetical Barbarossa starting from that much farther East could very well succeed.

It's relations with the West would not change at all. The Soviet Union was hated and feared for much of the 1920s and 1930s by the West, and many countries did not have formal diplomatic relations with it.

 

[leopard9]

The central Asian SSR's aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, so I'll focus on eastern Europe. Ukraine and Belarus were the most important, most industrialized and most highly populated SSRs after Russia. However, they were mostly industrialized by the USSR and had mostly agrarian economies much like Russia did before the Revolution. The loss of the extra population will hurt the USSR, and it will be unhappy that its borders aren't as far west as it would like. Ukraine and Belarus were considered to be traditional Russian lands. The USSR will try to get them back by any means necessary and will go to war to seize them if they must, a war that they would win.

This ATL Soviet Union's economy will be weaker, with a smaller population and lack of the Ukrainian grain exports. A hypothetical Barbarossa starting from that much farther East could very well succeed.

It's relations with the West would not change at all. The Soviet Union was hated and feared for much of the 1920s and 1930s by the West, and many countries did not have formal diplomatic relations with it.

I guess my thinking is that Germany's borders weren't anywhere near what they wanted them to be even wrt WW1, but they still managed to briefly create a massive war machine that rapidly knocked out multiple large European nations and had the Soviet Union on the backfoot for a while. My question is how powerful a nation that's basically Russia+ could be given how powerful a slightly diminished Germany was.

 

[thaddeus]

are the Caucasus part of this speculative Soviet Union? (or call it Soviet Russia), since we are "splitting the difference" in Ukraine, maybe Azerbaijan (Baku) could be part of Turkey (say the Ottomans remained neutral during WWI) or Iran, but the rest of the Caucasus are under Soviet control?

does not seem Soviet Russia could survive without some of the oil from that region.

 

[Retro_Reaction]

I guess my thinking is that Germany's borders weren't anywhere near what they wanted them to be even wrt WW1, but they still managed to briefly create a massive war machine that rapidly knocked out multiple large European nations and had the Soviet Union on the backfoot for a while. My question is how powerful a nation that's basically Russia+ could be given how powerful a slightly diminished Germany was.

Germany and Russia had very different industrial and human capital developments not only in the interwar period but in the previous hundred years that affected how those nations waged war. Germany had some of the largest steel and chemical conglomerates, not just in the europe but globally. The USSR with less territory and no other changes would simply be in a worse position than otl

 

[FlyingSquirrel]

Could we see CPSU General Secretary Nazarbayev before the union dissolves?

 

[thenextgui]

Without the Soviet invasion of Armenia, would Turkey (Republic, not Ottomans as I assume they still lose the civil war) invade and conquer the rest of Armenia?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

What I mean is let's say that after the Bolsheviks decisively win the Russian Civil War, they content themselves with the borders of modern day Russia and Kazakhstan with the addition of Crimea and the Donestk so that the Sea of Azov becomes a Russian lake and there's a natural land bridge to Crimea. Would that lead to a more powerful Soviet Union/Russia in the long run as they'd have a smaller (though still massive) territory to invest in and modernize? I know Ukraine is very valuable as an agricultural resource, but Russia with what's effectively the Donestk region ITTL would still have a large chunk of that valuable soil.

So, how does a smaller Soviet Union that's really just Russia, Kazakhstan, Crimea, and the Donestk region of Ukraine do from the end of the Russian Civil War all the way through World War Two and the start of the Cold War? Is Barbarossa as successful as it was IOTL? Does Russia end up having a stronger economy? What are its relations like with the West and Germany prior to World War Two?

This would be a very dramatic chance since the USSR always viewed Eastern Europe as a bulwark to the mortal danger that were the Western Imperialist powers. So maybe this means to a less paranoid, isolated and autocratic USSR?

 

[leopard9]

are the Caucasus part of this speculative Soviet Union? (or call it Soviet Russia), since we are "splitting the difference" in Ukraine, maybe Azerbaijan (Baku) could be part of Turkey (say the Ottomans remained neutral during WWI) or Iran, but the rest of the Caucasus are under Soviet control?

does not seem Soviet Russia could survive without some of the oil from that region.

"Russia" in this case is basically the border of modern day Russia, including Crimea. The added on parts are the Donestk and Kazakhstan. I'm aware that getting back at least Ukraine and Belarus would be a priority whether the Reds or Whites won, but let's say they decide to go intensive instead of extensive and work to industrialize and invest in their reduced territory. Germany kind of ran through much of their non-Russian territory anyways, so perhaps having a smaller territory to prepare for war and defend might mean a better WW2 outcome for the Russians.

 

[thaddeus]

are the Caucasus part of this speculative Soviet Union? (or call it Soviet Russia), since we are "splitting the difference" in Ukraine, maybe Azerbaijan (Baku) could be part of Turkey (say the Ottomans remained neutral during WWI) or Iran, but the rest of the Caucasus are under Soviet control?

does not seem Soviet Russia could survive without some of the oil from that region.

"Russia" in this case is basically the border of modern day Russia, including Crimea. The added on parts are the Donestk and Kazakhstan. I'm aware that getting back at least Ukraine and Belarus would be a priority whether the Reds or Whites won, but let's say they decide to go intensive instead of extensive and work to industrialize and invest in their reduced territory. Germany kind of ran through much of their non-Russian territory anyways, so perhaps having a smaller territory to prepare for war and defend might mean a better WW2 outcome for the Russians.

there are dead in the water without the oil from the Caucasus, the other areas were not developed in the 1920's and well into the 1930's

 

[leopard9]

Okay, so this is something I've read about wrt Imperial Russia and the Soviet Unio and in both polities there seems to have been this bias in developing non-Russian areas instead of Russia. Like the Brest-Litovsk treaty is noted to have severed the most valuable areas of the empire from Russia. Isn't the point of Empire to enrich the core even at the expense of the periphery? Why didn't Russia invest in its homeland? I mean, no one would say that Russia is geopolitically fucked (before Ukraine invasion) simply because it doesn't have the Baltics or all of the Caucuses currently. So why is it doomed ITTL?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Okay, so this is something I've read about wrt Imperial Russia and the Soviet Unio and in both polities there seems to have been this bias in developing non-Russian areas instead of Russia. Like the Brest-Litovsk treaty is noted to have severed the most valuable areas of the empire from Russia. Isn't the point of Empire to enrich the core even at the expense of the periphery? Why didn't Russia invest in its homeland? I mean, no one would say that Russia is geopolitically fucked (before Ukraine invasion) simply because it doesn't have the Baltics or all of the Caucuses currently. So why is it doomed ITTL?

Geography. The Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic are just more valuable real estate because they are...better bits of geography. Better growing seasons, sea access, integrated economies, often higher educational standards, all that stuff.

 

[thenextgui]

Okay, so this is something I've read about wrt Imperial Russia and the Soviet Unio and in both polities there seems to have been this bias in developing non-Russian areas instead of Russia. Like the Brest-Litovsk treaty is noted to have severed the most valuable areas of the empire from Russia. Isn't the point of Empire to enrich the core even at the expense of the periphery? Why didn't Russia invest in its homeland? I mean, no one would say that Russia is geopolitically fucked (before Ukraine invasion) simply because it doesn't have the Baltics or all of the Caucuses currently. So why is it doomed ITTL?

I believed the expectation was that investments would make the population less likely to rebel

 

[leopard9]

I believed the expectation was that investments would make the population less likely to rebel

Hmm. Russia has never been known for treating its people all that well, and as I've dug deeper into Russian history and seen how many European nations did proportionately more with significantly less, I wonder if the empire actually ended up hobbling Russia's development by staving off the need to industrialize and modernize in their own land.

I understand that Russia doesn't have the best climate and its borders are hard to defend, but if Germany and France could threaten to dominate the continent then I don't see why a Russia with modern-ish borders couldn't be an even larger power than they were IOTL.

 

[thenextgui]

I'm not sure that this is true. For instance, the UK was the industrial and economic center of the world in the same period that it was the dominant colonial power. Once the UK lost its colonies, it deindustrialized as well.