Without WWII happening, Germany beating France, and 'wounding' the USSR by invading it, the USSR would have been naturally set to rule over Europe

[raharris1973]

Every now and then I've seen a theory on alternate history or historical discussion boards that can be distilled this way, "without WWII happening, Germany beating France, and 'wounding' the USSR by invading it, the USSR would have been naturally set to rule over Europe, in time."

Is this theory:

The most logical extrapolation of geopolitical capabilities and intentions over the mid-20th century in a no-Nazis or less successful Nazis TL

A very unlikely extrapolation of of geopolitical capabilities and intentions over the mmid-20th century in a no-Nazis or less successful Nazis TL

Likelihood is impossible to estimate, but it is one of many logical possible outcomes of the mid-20th century in a no-Nazis or less successful Nazis TL

Likelihood is impossible to estimate, it could happen, but it mostly reveals the political biases or obsessions of the person proposing it

 

[Incognitia]

Leaving aside the US for a moment, Britain France and Germany have together had more population, more industry and larger economies than the USSR.

Unless the USSR can get one of them willingly on-side, they just don't have the weight to dominate all of Europe.

OTL worked out with everyone Vs Germany, and the USSR was able to dominate half of Europe; not seeing how they get much further without help.

 

[JesterBL]

Getting much further West militarily than they did IOTL- don't think this is very likely.

Dominating central and eastern Europe and having a more sound economy post-WW2: absolutely, whether you would call that dominating Europe is an open question.

 

[Delta Force]

The Soviet Union fought World War II in some of its most productive regions and lost millions of citizens. It didn't get any Marshall Plan aid and yet it still became the second most powerful country in the world. How would it not be even more powerful without that happening?

 

[History Learner]

The Soviet Union fought World War II in some of its most productive regions and lost millions of citizens. It didn't get any Marshall Plan aid and yet it still became the second most powerful country in the world. How would it not be even more powerful without that happening?

By the same token, the Anglo-French-Germans haven't been exhausted by six years of war either. Their combined productive capacity in 1936 greatly exceeded the USSR already.

 

[Alex Richards]

The Soviet Union fought World War II in some of its most productive regions and lost millions of citizens. It didn't get any Marshall Plan aid and yet it still became the second most powerful country in the world. How would it not be even more powerful without that happening?

I mean it fought in those regions with massive amounts of Lend Lease and was the second largest military in the world but certainly not the second most powerful economically. They also extracted significant reparations in goods, equipment and financial compensation from both Germany and the bits of Eastern Europe they were occupying- infamously whole factories were essentially taken from Eastern Germany and sent back to Russia.

There's a decent argument that without the Nazi invasion forcing a kick up the arse to the Soviet system that the process of the purges and the Five Year Plans and the Holdomor and the like that dominated the 30s would have continued, with the result that by the 60s the Soviet economy would be about level in net terms- more people doing more, but also more economic inefficiencies being carpeted over to cover up that things aren't going as well as Stalin is claiming.

Now that Soviet Union probably ends up significantly ahead of where it was historically by the 80s because actually implementing decent economic ideas with more people will have an effect, but I can very easily see it being the case that there's the Soviet Union, a large economically strong Germany and then the whole gaggle of eastern European states between that tend to try and play both off to secure their independence.

 

[raharris1973]

I mean it fought in those regions with massive amounts of Lend Lease and was the second largest military in the world but certainly not the second most powerful economically.

actually it was, from the 1940s until 1982-ish.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

actually it was, from the 1940s until 1982-ish.

It was perceived to be, which isn't quite the same thing. It was perceived to be the world 's second most powerful military back in January. I have read that the amount of exaggerations about achievement, double counting etc. was so bad in the Soviet economy that, by the time of the fall of Krushchev, only the KGB knew the true state of the economy and that, by the time of the death of Andropov, even the KGB weren't sure any more.