WI: Soviet Union Is Leading World Power After World War II?

Greenville

Banned
Consider the following scenario. The United States never intervenes in either the European or Pacific theaters during World War II. No Lend-Lease or embargoes on the Japanese. Britain eventually signs an armistice due to lack of shipping. The Soviet Union is invaded by Nazi Germany but eventually, manages to overcome the invasion and march on Berlin and Rome by 1947. The Soviet army comes to occupy most of the nations in continental Europe once occupied by the Axis in the years to follow. The Soviet Union is now the leading military and economic power in the world.

What happens next?
 
Unless Barbarossa screws up so badly that it stumbles to a halt further west (in which case the war would be over rather much faster then 1947), the odds of the USSR sucessfully marching into Germany plummet rather badly in your scenario. Hell, they'd be fortunate to eek out a stalemate. And I say this as one of the more "pro-Soviet" people (in terms of their odds) on the forum. Even if it does happen...

Or the USSR collapses from overextension and exhaustion? I highly doubt they even get this far without any US lend lease aid.

Well, petty much this.
 
Basically impossible.

The problem for the Soviets is that while they have plenty of advantages against the Germans, once they are done with the Germans, they are still exhausted by a brutal war and are a poor, backward 3rd world state that is large enough to be a regional power but has no real capability for power projection. The US, by contrast, is 1st world, developed and can have exactly as much power projection as they want. It's pretty much impossible for the Soviets to be more important than the US, since even a very isolationist US that lets the Soviets be dominant in Asia and Europe will lay down the law over some red lines.

fasquardon
 
Even if (if) the Soviets pull this off, the sheer number of casualties from the war (no US so easy to assume the Germans throw even MORE forces east) coupled with likely guerilla attacks and partisans as the Soviets are forced to occupy a devastated Central and Eastern Europe will leave them struggling well into the 1960s economically and demographically. I could see the UK happily supporting insurgents and this turning into the Soviet's Vietnam. The Japanese may even spar along the border testing Soviet strength over the years stretching Soviet forces even more.
 
Consider the following scenario. The United States never intervenes in either the European or Pacific theaters during World War II. No Lend-Lease or embargoes on the Japanese. Britain eventually signs an armistice due to lack of shipping. The Soviet Union is invaded by Nazi Germany but eventually, manages to overcome the invasion and march on Berlin and Rome by 1947. The Soviet army comes to occupy most of the nations in continental Europe once occupied by the Axis in the years to follow. The Soviet Union is now the leading military and economic power in the world.

What happens next?
As others have said the USSR being economically dominant over the US is extremely unlikely. In 1940 the US economy was already over twice as large as the Soviet Economy. In 1945 OTL it was over four times as large. Now having the Soviet Union get into a longer, more expensive war, while the US avoids spending 74% of its GDP during the period on war, and the ratio should be more in favor of the US rather than less
 

Greenville

Banned
As others have said the USSR being economically dominant over the US is extremely unlikely. In 1940 the US economy was already over twice as large as the Soviet Economy. In 1945 OTL it was over four times as large. Now having the Soviet Union get into a longer, more expensive war, while the US avoids spending 74% of its GDP during the period on war, and the ratio should be more in favor of the US rather than less

The Americans aren't at war in this situation.
 
The Americans aren't at war in this situation.
Exactly, as a result the US isn't blowing that huge fortune on fighting the war, would result in the US Economy doing better than OTL. Meanwhile the Soviet Union, assuming a war that lasts into 1947, is doing worse and has a weaker economy than OTL. So instead of the US Economy being 4x as big as the Soviet is should be more like 5 or 6 times as big
 

orwelans II

Banned
Exactly, as a result the US isn't blowing that huge fortune on fighting the war, would result in the US Economy doing better than OTL. Meanwhile the Soviet Union, assuming a war that lasts into 1947, is doing worse and has a weaker economy than OTL. So instead of the US Economy being 4x as big as the Soviet is should be more like 5 or 6 times as big
But the war and the planning it required helped the American economy, it wasn't a waste. Without entering the war the American economy would be smaller in 1945 than in OTL. In the OP's scenario, the Soviets also have the resources and, more importantly, the experts of continental Europe at their disposal. They can turn to handle Japan at their leisure and secure communist dominance in Korea and China. Although an invasion of Japanese mainland is unlikely, the Soviets don't need to cross an ocean to threaten it like the Americans did.

Sure, Europe won't rebuild as fast without the Marshal Plan, but plenty of countries didn't get the aid IOTL and they turned out just fine. The real questions to be asked are more political than economic: Would the Free French recognise the new Soviet backed government in Paris? For how long would isolationism be dominant in the US as long as nobody attacks it? What would the UK's position be towards decolonisation and the new order in Europe.
 
It's inevitable for Japan and Soviets to duke it out in China.

Not really, if the Japanese win in China, Japanese has all the resources it needs and it won't go to war.

However, the problem with the premise is there are no realistic ways Britain to just surrender to work out. Even if the Soviets do manage to somehow conquer Europe against the full might of a one front Nazi Germany, the Soviets would have to rebuild their nation and occupied Europe while Japan and the U.S would be sitting relatively untouched.
 
But the war and the planning it required helped the American economy, it wasn't a waste. Without entering the war the American economy would be smaller in 1945 than in OTL. In the OP's scenario, the Soviets also have the resources and, more importantly, the experts of continental Europe at their disposal. They can turn to handle Japan at their leisure and secure communist dominance in Korea and China. Although an invasion of Japanese mainland is unlikely, the Soviets don't need to cross an ocean to threaten it like the Americans did.

Sure, Europe won't rebuild as fast without the Marshal Plan, but plenty of countries didn't get the aid IOTL and they turned out just fine. The real questions to be asked are more political than economic: Would the Free French recognise the new Soviet backed government in Paris? For how long would isolationism be dominant in the US as long as nobody attacks it? What would the UK's position be towards decolonisation and the new order in Europe.
The US was already recovering before entering the war. The US Spent ~40% of its output on non-productive things (weapons) during that period, spending some of that money (the US had already massively increased its military budget in 1940 and 41) on productive things, infrastructure, investment, trade, would increase the economy more, plus the US will still be selling weapons, resources and supplies to anyone with the cash to pay for it, as the OP said no embargo

The Soviets also spent two years longer at war in the OP's scenario and did not get lend lease, two more years of delayed investment and maintenance in infrastructure, two years more of young men dying en masse (my guess 3 million extra, plus several million civilians), I'd be surprised if they could hold down Eastern Europe to the same degree as OTL, much less Western Europe. It certainly won't have the GDP of OTL

The US had abandoned isolationism before Pearl Harbor, when France fell 88% of the US supported arming to the teeth (which it started doing) and 71% universal conscription, before Pearl Harbor 70% of the US was in favor of going to war if needed. If the USSR takes over Western Europe, well the US is going to take that seriously

Free French are unlikely to recognize a Soviet Government, though IMO it's more likely they'd just waltz in after the Soviets take Berlin/Rome and the Germans and Italians pull everything out to stop them
 
Without a US intervention, the best the Soviets can hope for is peace with the Germans. Eventually Hitler develops the atomic bomb and restarts the war. There is simply no way for the USSR to defeat Germany with a British armistice and total German concentration on the Eastern Front. If the Germans were desperate enough, they could break out the nerve gas and devastate Soviet troop concentrations.
 

Asami

Banned
The Soviet Union had no chance of actually winning and keeping the peace in World War II without US aid. While the Soviet Union contributed the majority of ground forces in Europe, a lot of their key supply lines were kept open by the Wallies.

At that end, the Soviet Union holding anything west of the Elbe after Barbarossa and a war against the Germans is going to be a nightmare logistically, with enough partisan warfare to choke a horse.
 
Question: the OP specifies no embargoes against Japan, but what about Germany? Without a British blockade Germany would be able to send ships to the US to buy supplies unless the US has specifically blocked them or decided to enforce the Neutrality Act completely, in which case Japan would probably be slapped by it sooner or later.

Not really, if the Japanese win in China, Japanese has all the resources it needs and it won't go to war.

No they don't. They still need oil, etc. And they are out of cash to buy it in '42.
 
[QUOTE="wcv215, post: 15094668, member: 17566] No they don't. They still need oil, etc. And they are out of cash to buy it in '42.[/QUOTE]

The Japanese were only embargoed by the U.S after they occupied Northern Indochina to cut off Chinese supply lines, if the U.S decides to not do anything to Japan then it's more a matter of Japan trying to achieve peace with China. If the Japanese "win" in China then the Japanese would just start consolidation of their gains or extracting resources, that can happen if Chiang feels isolated as the only supply route left is the Burma Road and if Britain gives up then who is to say they can still supply the Chinese, or given the desperate times try and restore the Anglo-Japanese alliance.

Then again this whole premise is basically ASB, but it can be made into something workable.
 
The Japanese were only embargoed by the U.S after they occupied Northern Indochina to cut off Chinese supply lines

Hence why I noted that the Japanese were running out of money to BUY stuff from the US with. You don't have to embargo something to refuse to sell it to someone who can't pay.
 
Top