USSR stronger after WW2 and through the Cold War

lwhitehead · Feb 17, 2016

Hi folks as seeing how Russia turned out with Putin in charge, I'm thinking it was better under USSR control.

We Need to make a 21th Century USSR stronger then it was in real life, Red Ivan needs to as large and strong as America made them out to be.

the Start could be WW2, USSR and the A Bomb I don't know how close they were in research and building the bomb without spying for it.

No Red China Split, United Korea is Red and so is Laos and Vietnam,

LW

gaijin · Feb 17, 2016

Uhmmm, the Soviet Union better than present day Russia??

Really??

Russia today is not a Slavic Switzerland but to think the USSR was better is insane.

You should read up a bit on what the USSR was like. Present day Russia is light years better, both to its own populace as to the world at large.

omnimercurial · Feb 17, 2016

Disagree with you Gaijin.

Historyman 14 · Feb 17, 2016

No. Just no.

The USSR was horrible. Look at Stalin and everything he did.

The USSR got the bomb the way they did due to spies in the US.

China is going to leave, no matter what.

lwhitehead · Jan 11, 2017

Well it's true that they did some things wrong, but I played Video Games with some really good alt history backgrounds were USSR was much stronger then NATO.

LW

Napoleon IV · Jan 11, 2017

Under Stalin the USSR was responsible for the deaths of roughly 20 million people, mostly it's own citizens. It's hard to get much worse than that.

gaijin · Jan 11, 2017

lwhitehead said:
Well it's true that they did some things wrong, but I played Video Games with some really good alt history backgrounds were USSR was much stronger then NATO.

LW

You necro a one year old treat to make that weak a point???

Pro-tip, if your argument is based on knowledge obtained from video games you are doing something very very wrong.

James Ricker · Jan 11, 2017

If Stalin has an accident sometime, the Soviets will do better "in the great patriotic war"More land conquered in less time with fewer casualties. Not losing 27 million people in the war is the big butterfly here.

Booster Gold · Jan 11, 2017

The former Soviet people have their own opinions on the subject and a slight majority seems to have preferred the way things were

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx

Maybe make Kruschevism a thing? He was wrong a lot, but at least open to free(r) thought and ideas. Or butterfly Stalin altogether.

portgofor · Jan 11, 2017

Is the USSR the most controversial country to discuss here ever? Last two threads I visited on it were filled with off-topic posting on how bad it was and I've not seen a Sovietwank here, maybe I haven't been looking but there are Hitlerwanks so there's that.

ObssesedNuker · Jan 11, 2017

portgofor said:
Is the USSR the most controversial country to discuss here ever? Last two threads I visited on it were filled with off-topic posting on how bad it was and I've not seen a Sovietwank here, maybe I haven't been looking but there are Hitlerwanks so there's that.

There've been a few, although most are years old.

Dunning Kruger · Jan 11, 2017

portgofor said:
Is the USSR the most controversial country to discuss here ever? Last two threads I visited on it were filled with off-topic posting on how bad it was and I've not seen a Sovietwank here, maybe I haven't been looking but there are Hitlerwanks so there's that.

After 1938, it's really hard to wank the USSR. Stalin sewed the seeds of its own destruction. And its hard to find much of anything redeeming about the USSR other than it stopped the Nazis. It utterly failed to produce anything that remotely resembled something positive for its citizens and offered little hope of anything more. At best it was less bad than the Tsar, Hitler, or Putin.

portgofor · Jan 11, 2017

Dunning Kruger said:
After 1938, it's really hard to wank the USSR. Stalin sewed the seeds of its own destruction. And its hard to find much of anything redeeming about the USSR other than it stopped the Nazis. It utterly failed to produce anything that remotely resembled something positive for its citizens and offered little hope of anything more. At best it was less bad than the Tsar, Hitler, or Putin.

You are underestimating the power of wanking my friend.

Dunning Kruger · Jan 11, 2017

portgofor said:
You are underestimating the power of wanking my friend.

There's a difference between a wank and something possible but so unlikely that it might as well be ASB even if it isnt. With the USSR post 1938 POD, its possible to do the former but much more likely that it turns into the latter.

portgofor · Jan 11, 2017

Dunning Kruger said:
There's a difference between a wank and something possible but so unlikely that it might as well be ASB even if it isnt. With the USSR post 1938 POD, its possible to do the former but much more likely that it turns into the latter.

I just think the USSR hits closer to home and is held to a different standard than the Nazis because it is not only associated with the war but also with what followed afterwards. Also it existed in the late 20th century, so not ancient history.

Napoleonrules · Jan 11, 2017

Napoleon IV said:
Under Stalin the USSR was responsible for the deaths of roughly 20 million people, mostly it's own citizens. It's hard to get much worse than that.

Being better doesn't mean being nicer. It means being stronger. You dont have to treat your people nicely to be a stronger nation and be a super power. Just ask the PRC.

ObssesedNuker · Jan 11, 2017

Things for the average citizen in the USSR did get better after Stalin kicked the bucket. The standard of living greatly improved and the regime let off on the totalitarianism. It was still a dictatorship that was far too happy with hauling dissidents off to the Gulag, make no mistake about that, but it wasn't the complete Orwellian nightmare that Stalin ran.

Dunning Kruger said:
After 1938, it's really hard to wank the USSR.

It's actually fairly easy. Hitler is convinced to Barbarossa gets post-poned into 1942 for whatever reason. I've detailed the consequences of that pretty thoroughly elsewhere on the forum. The result is a wank, at least compared to OTL.

If one wants a more pure-Soviet PoD, some regimental or divisional officer during the Yel'niya makes some better tactical decisions and mauls an extra German grenadier division. This forces the SS motorized division to remain in the area to fill the gap and means it can't then quickly move to prevent the 10th motorized from being overrun. That would dislocate AGC's drive south, avert the Kiev encirclement, and butterfly away Vyazma-Bryansk. It basically collapses Barbarossa right then and there. That leaves the Soviets with gobs of extra military and economic resources to build up and crush the Germans with.

portgofor said:
I just think the USSR hits closer to home and is held to a different standard than the Nazis because it is not only associated with the war but also with what followed afterwards. Also it existed in the late 20th century, so not ancient history.

I think it more has to do with old Cold War stereotyping of the Soviets as backwards and incapable, plus adding a dash of triumphalism from how the whole thing turned out. A acceptance of myths, some of which have some pretty disturbing moral connotations, perpetuated by former German generals also factors into it.

Dunning Kruger · Jan 11, 2017

ObssesedNuker said:
Things for the average citizen in the USSR did get better after Stalin kicked the bucket. The standard of living greatly improved and the regime let off on the totalitarianism. It was still a dictatorship that was far too happy with hauling dissidents off to the Gulag, make no mistake about that, but it wasn't the complete Orwellian nightmare that Stalin ran.

It's actually fairly easy. Hitler is convinced to Barbarossa gets post-poned into 1942 for whatever reason. I've detailed the consequences of that pretty thoroughly elsewhere on the forum. The result is a wank, at least compared to OTL.

If one wants a more pure-Soviet PoD, some regimental or divisional officer during the Yel'niya makes some better tactical decisions and mauls an extra German grenadier division. This forces the SS motorized division to remain in the area to fill the gap and means it can't then quickly move to prevent the 10th motorized from being overrun. That would dislocate AGC's drive south, avert the Kiev encirclement, and butterfly away Vyazma-Bryansk. It basically collapses Barbarossa right then and there. That leaves the Soviets with gobs of extra military and economic resources to build up and crush the Germans with.

I think it more has to do with old Cold War stereotyping of the Soviets as backwards and incapable, plus adding a dash of triumphalism from how the whole thing turned out. A acceptance of myths, some of which have some pretty disturbing moral connotations, perpetuated by former German generals also factors into it.

Well, the less competent Nazi invasion does fulfill this to a certain extent - a lot of people and resources are left standing. But that just more for the Soviets to squander post WWII. Stalin gutted the Apparatus of people with initiative, creativity and boldness. You cant create a sustainable, global power with people utterly lacking in such characteristics. I always love the "what if Kosygin's reforms were implemented" posts. The people that might have actually had the ability to execute this were either dead or so scarred by the purges that they would never again take such a risk of deviating from the status quo.

ObssesedNuker · Jan 11, 2017

Dunning Kruger said:
But that just more for the Soviets to squander post WWII.

The Soviets didn't start squandering it until the 1970s, a decade-and-a-half after they had recovered from WW2.

Stalin gutted the Apparatus of people with initiative, creativity and boldness.

27 million Soviet citizens died in WW2. Among them I bet you'll find plenty who had great capacity for initiative, creativity, and boldness. And that isn't taking into account the physical destruction.

It is true that Stalin's policies were harmful to the USSR, yes. But it wasn't a patch on what WW2 did to them. And it is true that even if the Soviets do dodge that level of harm and pain, a successful reform that allows the USSR to continue and thrive is still not guaranteed. But "not guaranteed" is not the same as "impossible".

The people that might have actually had the ability to execute this were either dead or so scarred by the purges that they would never again take such a risk of deviating from the status quo.

Except they did. The moment Stalin kicked the bucket they started trying. They didn't succeed, ultimately, but they did try.

BBadolato · Jan 11, 2017

I would actually say the USSR could have done better under Khrushchev if he managed to stay in power, which if he didn't have the idea for misses in Cuba or that it blew up that the Politburo wouldn't have called for his resignation. Khruschev also wanted a more "freer" second world and did experiment with market socialism, all that went with Khruschev, even with Stalin's purges.

the problem is Stalin's willingness to put others either under the bus or on the back burner would really dog his successor who has to deal a fed up Mao. I'd would argue that the Korean War was the last straw as far as averting the Sino-Soviet split went. Basically, Stalin only gave his support to Kim, if Mao was going to help and basically let those two the heavy lifting despite assurances. If Stalin could die earlier before the Korean War breaks out you could possibly keep the Second World as a much more stable force.