WW2 delayed or preempted: How does the USSR turn out?

MrP

Banned
This is a question that has been on my mind ever since I read Spufford's Red Plenty, the tale of how the Soviet command economy tried and failed to keep the promise of abundance for all.

The first two Five-Year Plans created tremendous social and economic dislocation in the USSR--famine, sudden rural exodus, forced relocation of millions of people, etc. The country had barely adjusted when Germany invaded and laid waste to huge swathes of its agricultural and industrial heartland. Between the casualties and the material destruction, the Soviet economy was dealt a blow from which it hadn't fully recovered at the time of Stalin's death. One symbol of the cost of the war is the Palace of the Soviet: its partially assembled steel structure was hastily dismantled to feed the war machine, and afterwards all that was left of the construction site was a big, water-filled hole, that was later converted into an outdoor swimming pool. (The cathedral that originally stood on the spot has now been rebuilt).

So, my question is: if for whatever reason (say, a run-of-the-mill authoritarian regime takes over in Germany instead of the Nazis--the precise reason falls outside of the scope of this thread) WW2 was delayed for several years or preempted altogether, how would the USSR turn out economically? First in the short run under Stalin, and then in the following decades?
 

Deleted member 1487

They would probably have an easier time industrializing, but I'm less optimistic than Obsessednuker about Soviet advancement. If they enter into a trade deal with Germany, which I think is probably inevitable in some way they can really benefit from all that advanced Western tech, but they will remain permanently behind, especially while remaining isolated intellectually. They won't benefit by looting the more advanced industry of Central Europe, nor get Western scientists to bring back to the USSR and jump start any number of projects; the Soviets would advance there eventually, but even by the time of WW2 they were still stuck with limited modern technology in terms of industry and had to source most of their industrial equipment from Germany or the US. Without war and maintaining trade they will certainly benefit, but the Great Depression killed their export market, which meant they lacked the hard currency to import in needed quantities; if they can barter with Germany they can resume trade with the West to a degree. The thing is Europe would probably advance faster without WW2 to a significant degree, especially if the Nazis don't come to power and the Great Depression resolves without war or Fascists in power in Germany. So the USSR remains perpetually behind even as it developed; its going to be TTL's China, somewhat innovative in some categories, but ultimately hamstrung by its corrupt and inefficient system. When modern computer chip technology starts coming along with better transistors the Soviets are doomed, as they will never be able to keep up, especially without the most innovative of their East bloc working on that: East Germany (who never really succeeded despite their efforts).

TTL Germany will probably be the source of modern tech for the USSR and just end up using Russia for what they do today: raw materials and energy.
 
It depends on how long the war is delayed for. The longer it's delayed, the more ships the Germans have to intercept artic naval convoys (Plan Z). However, a delayed war also means that the Soviet Union is more prepared. The red army would have had ore time to modernize and would have less or depending on how long the delay is, no obselete airplanes or tanks. Hitler knew this and that's why he struck in 1941.
 

Andre27

Banned
I think that the USSR would have collapsed due to civil unrest in the 1950's if the great patriotic war as it is called back there (rest of the world calls it WW2) had not taken place.

After all the brutality and oppression in the 20's and 30's the attack on the USSR gave the soviet regime a cause to rally the masses and to justify itself.

Despite the horrible losses, the second world war was the reason communism in Russia could survive. Had the second world war not taken place then development of the atom bomb would probably have been delayed by 10 years or more. This would have taken away one of the main justifications for the cold war.

Without something real to rally against i do not think the USSR would have survived into the 60's.

Purges would have continued in the 40's and 50's and i believe fear would have hampered the economic growth. Assuming the famine of 1946 still happens and is actually worse due to larger population and it is common sense that the USSR will be anything but stable if WW2 does not happen.
 

MrP

Banned
Assuming the famine of 1946 still happens and is actually worse due to larger population and it is common sense that the USSR will be anything but stable if WW2 does not happen.
That's a big assumption, though. One would think, rather, that Soviet agricultural output is higher than in OTL thanks to not having its breadbasket turned into a battlefield.
 

Andre27

Banned
That's a big assumption, though. One would think, rather, that Soviet agricultural output is higher than in OTL thanks to not having its breadbasket turned into a battlefield.

I disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

Fighting moved out of the USSR late 1944 and thus there was sufficient time to rebuild the fams prior to 1946.

Drought and loss of individual farming knowledge (due to collectivisation) were the killer blow to agriculture in the USSR in 46.

History shows a famine in the USSR roughly every 10 years so with extra mouths to feed the 46 famine would have been nothing short of disastrous.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

Fighting moved out of the USSR late 1944 and thus there was sufficient time to rebuild the fams prior to 1946.

Drought and loss of individual farming knowledge (due to collectivisation) were the killer blow to agriculture in the USSR in 46.

History shows a famine in the USSR roughly every 10 years so with extra mouths to feed the 46 famine would have been nothing short of disastrous.

Except that the Soviet Union was famously woefully inefficient in that area and the war was pretty devastating to the area, plus much of the area would be pretty depopulated due to Generalplan Ost and general war casualties.
 

Insider

Banned
Except that the Soviet Union was famously woefully inefficient in that area and the war was pretty devastating to the area, plus much of the area would be pretty depopulated due to Generalplan Ost and general war casualties.

It depends on how long the war would be delayed. If it would be a few years, then Germans could become boged down in France, because both French and BEF are better prepared. This was situation that Stalin wanted do create for all those years. USSR let it's citizens starve en masse, just if that mean they would have resources to build tanks, airplanes and guns. They were gearing for war since the end of NEP (1927 I believe). With Axis and Allies bleed out on the western front they wouldn't stop until river Rheine (the best case) or even the Pyrenees Mouintains
 
No War?

As soon as the Third 5 Year Plan is found not to work any better than the 2nd, more Wreckers and Spies are 'found' to explain why.

Oh, that and another Purge.

The 'Experts' said there was going to be a War between Germany and the West, but that didn't happen.

The will be made to pay for that mistake
 
Without WW2, Stalin would need another excuse for purges.

The first purges (1920s) were to eliminate political rivals, basically anyone who did not instantly convert to communism.

The second purges were to pay for industrialization. Remember that Russia was the last major European nation to industrialize. Stalin stripped Ukrainian wheat farms to feed new factory workers.
Similarly, Japan resorted to "rice mining" when she industrialized at the end of the 19th century.

Without WW2, Stalin would need another excuse to deport Crimean Tartars, so that he could import enough ethnic Russians to create the current friction with the Ukraine.

As for the 1946 drought .... without a war, Russia would still have enough grain in silos to feed the population for the year or two.

After WW2, Stalin would be short a few million German and minority slave labourers ... er ... prisoners of war.

Without WW2, Stalin would need another excuse to march to the gates of Vienna to convert Eastern Europe to communism, the Warsaw Pact would be much smaller and the Cold War would be boring.

Post W
 
Running on the no WW2 scenario: Well obviously it is vastly better then IOTL for the Soviets even if Stalin goes off his rocker again. The Soviets actually benefitted startlingly little from the looting of Eastern Germany and much of it's subsequent programs in the fields of nuclear energy and space exploration were mainly run off of home-grown talent so I don't know what Wiking is on about. In the longer run, the USSR is still going to run into the choice of either reforming or stagnation and collapse, it's part of the nature of command economies.
 
Running on the no WW2 scenario: Well obviously it is vastly better then IOTL for the Soviets even if Stalin goes off his rocker again. The Soviets actually benefitted startlingly little from the looting of Eastern Germany and much of it's subsequent programs in the fields of nuclear energy and space exploration were mainly run off of home-grown talent so I don't know what Wiking is on about. In the longer run, the USSR is still going to run into the choice of either reforming or stagnation and collapse, it's part of the nature of command economies.

Even if somehow you cannot accept the competence of Soviet engineers and scientists on their own the really effective technical espionage resources of fellow travellers in the West would still be there, the Soviet Union would still seem an antidote to right wing totalitarians and likely this effect would last longer as it did not crush the aspiration of Eastern Europe post a never happened to sully that image.

In the long run yes the system creaks badly and that will get worse but even an impoverished USSR looked viable until well into the 1960s and did not fall for another two decades beyond that.
 
Top