Post WW2 Russia if the USSR falls

[Xachiavelli]

This isn't a plausibility check on the USSR falling in WW2, but rather a question about what Russia would look like afterwards, assuming the allies win

Would they keep control of Kazakhstan, Ukraine and similar regions or not? Would they perhaps lose even more territory than they did in 1991?
I'm assuming that the Baltics get their independence and Finland and Poland return to their pre-1993 borders.

What sort of government would they likely have?

 

[RGB]

How do the allies win if USSR falls?

Not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly a much more involved scenario. It would impact the answer to your question for sure.

 

[Xachiavelli]

How do the allies win if USSR falls?

Not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly a much more involved scenario. It would impact the answer to your question for sure.

Well let's say that Stalin either commits suicide or is killed in a coup in 1941, the USSR falls into a civil war, eventually collapsing around 1943, at which point the allies are already closing in.

The war will be longer, but the allies could still win from this point. More nukes are used perhaps

 

[Snake Featherston]

See the A-A/NW for the realistic answer as to what this would look like, however in a practical terms Nazi Germany never has the ability to make the USSR fall in the first place so it's a question that can't be answered outside ASB TLs to start with. The democracies that were fumbling Salerno and Monte Cassino can't win in 1943, not if their performance against Hitler's C and B Team is any guide. Nor can they win any time before the 1950s.

In a realistic sense only a non-Nazi Germany has a chance to defeat the USSR on the battlefield, but a non-Nazi Germany won't have an OTL WWII in the first place.

 

[Aelita]

Well let's say that Stalin either commits suicide or is killed in a coup in 1941, the USSR falls into a civil war, eventually collapsing around 1943, at which point the allies are already closing in.

The war will be longer, but the allies could still win from this point. More nukes are used perhaps

They wouldn't fall into a civil war, especially with the enemy at the gates. No one had any inkling to do so.

 

[B_Munro]

See the A-A/NW for the realistic answer as to what this would look like, however in a practical terms Nazi Germany never has the ability to make the USSR fall in the first place so it's a question that can't be answered outside ASB TLs to start with. The democracies that were fumbling Salerno and Monte Cassino can't win in 1943, not if their performance against Hitler's C and B Team is any guide. Nor can they win any time before the 1950s.
.

So ASBs have magically removed the atomic bomb?

Bruce

 

[RGB]

So ASBs have magically removed the atomic bomb?

Bruce

Yes. The butterfly effect of the Soviet Civil War eliminated the Bomb

Seriously though, is there any indication about how the Germans would react to it?

 

[Rousseau]

Yes. The butterfly effect of the Soviet Civil War eliminated the Bomb

Seriously though, is there any indication about how the Germans would react to it?

I don't really have any proper evidence to support it, but I think that the use of the Atomic Bomb on Germany will simply ingrain the idea of a war of annihilation into the mindset of the German people and military, wherein resistance will in fact only intensify immediately following the dropping of said weapon. They certainly believed that it was indeed a war of annihilation as it concerned the Soviet Union, but not so much with the West -- this would change that perception, undoubtedly.

 

[Snake Featherston]

So ASBs have magically removed the atomic bomb?

Bruce

No, but given what the German C and B Team did to the WAllies with a great paucity of means, encountering soldiers from Army Groups North, Center, and South will see the WAllies go through Dunkirk Mk. II. And then they have no choice but to wait until the rottenness within Nazi Germany enfeebles it.

 

[B_Munro]

No, but given what the German C and B Team did to the WAllies with a great paucity of means, encountering soldiers from Army Groups North, Center, and South will see the WAllies go through Dunkirk Mk. II. And then they have no choice but to wait until the rottenness within Nazi Germany enfeebles it.

You're still not explaining which the Reich does not die of severe sunburn 1945-1946. And I'm not sure we would have to wait for nukes. Frankly, the Italian peninsula is a lot more defensible than northern France, and it's hardly like the Allies were putting their A-game into pushing to the Alps. Given the huge forces that would be required to garrison a defeated USSR (or keep an eye on some post-treaty rump USSR), it's doubtful they could have much more than doubled the overall forces in the west at the end of '44, and the US had reserves of manpower it hardly touched OTL (for all the meatless fridays and such, the US essentially pursued a gund-plus-butter approach to fighting WWII: it wasn't really squeezing industry till the pips squeaked, either). I suspect the US could still have forced a landing in France and pushed on to Berlin, although it would have been a real meatgrinder (and if there are any Russians still alive by that point, there's going to be a major revolt/attack by rump USSR at some point during the process).

Rousseau, the US use of nuclear weapons and threat of using more if the Germans don't surrender is going to convince the Germans they will be exterminated if they surrender and cause them to fight on to the point of Paraguayan losses? Color me skeptical. (BTW, with no second front, how likely is it the US will no longer insist on unconditional surrender? Truman just might be willing to go for a negotiated surrender before we move on to atom bomb large-scale production as long as it includes Hitler's head on a stick).

Bruce

 

[Snake Featherston]

You're still not explaining which the Reich does not die of severe sunburn 1945-1946. And I'm not sure we would have to wait for nukes. Frankly, the Italian peninsula is a lot more defensible than northern France, and it's hardly like the Allies were putting their A-game into pushing to the Alps. Given the huge forces that would be required to garrison a defeated USSR (or keep an eye on some post-treaty rump USSR), it's doubtful they could have much more than doubled the overall forces in the west at the end of '44, and the US had reserves of manpower it hardly touched OTL (for all the meatless fridays and such, the US essentially pursued a gund-plus-butter approach to fighting WWII: it wasn't really squeezing industry till the pips squeaked, either). I suspect the US could still have forced a landing in France and pushed on to Berlin, although it would have been a real meatgrinder (and if there are any Russians still alive by that point, there's going to be a major revolt/attack by rump USSR at some point during the process).

Rousseau, the US use of nuclear weapons and threat of using more if the Germans don't surrender is going to convince the Germans they will be exterminated if they surrender and cause them to fight on to the point of Paraguayan losses? Color me skeptical. (BTW, with no second front, how likely is it the US will no longer insist on unconditional surrender? Truman just might be willing to go for a negotiated surrender before we move on to atom bomb large-scale production as long as it includes Hitler's head on a stick).

Bruce

Given the USA has very few nuclear weapons at that time and fewer planes still able to deliver them, it hasn't nukes enough to burn Germany in nuclear fire.

 

[b12ox]

The best idea is to introduce a kind of TL where Germany and USSR defeat each other and the WAllies come in to sweep. Such a scenario would require use of chemical yeast or nuclear waste on cities in both Russia and Germany. THe UK would be the first to go done in such scenario with the US having some good chances to survive it albeit not unscathed. The whole of Europe becomes one quarantine zone with new technology needed to operate there to cean the mess.

 

[Awilla the Hun]

I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Wasn't there a thread about this a couple of weeks ago?

Come to think of it, wasn't Snake kicked in that one?

 

[Rich Rostrom]

How do the allies win if USSR falls?

Not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly a much more involved scenario. It would impact the answer to your question for sure.

Well, the bucket o' sunshine in 1945 ends it for sure.

But even without that...

Germany is confined to continental Europe. The US and Britain have the rest of the world. (Japan is a major distraction, but there's nothing to prevent the Allies from leaving Germany bottled up for two years while they crush Japan.)

The Allies can outproduce the Axis in every industrial category by a factor of at least two. That's even allowing for some Axis production in the ruins of the USSR. They have comparable advantages in manpower, even allowing for Axis satellite forces. (Which would you rather have: Italians and Romanians, or Gurkhas and Goums?)

Let's say the Germans can fortify the coasts of Europe to deter any possibie invasion... The Allies can still march overland from Asia.

So the Allies win, one way or another.

What becomes of Russia? Partly it depends on whether the Allies have marched through or not. If Germany surrenders in 1945 after the Allies nuke Berlin... ex-Soviet territory is going to shake out much as eastern Europe did in 1918. The locals will overthrow the Axis in the area and set up their own regimes, and the US/UK won't intervene on the ground.

The Allies may insist on certain qualifications for any new government, but I'm not sure what.