I’m currently reading an English language book published in Moscow in 1972 called, ‘Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union’.
Not really surprisingly a consistent theme running through it is how the Soviet state could not have resisted the Nazi invasion as effectively if it was not run, organised and directed by the Communist Party and the socialist system in place. There is much emphasis placed on the political education and direction of the troops and Communism as a unifying factor for the various nationalities and ethnicities of the USSR.
The en mass removal of factories and industries to safety behind the Urals is certainly an impressive feat that might be hard to replicate in a more loosely organised Capitalist state.
So basically my question is, obvious propaganda acknowledged, do the authors have a point? What if any difference would a non-Communist Russian Empire have made to the course of the Second World War?
There wouldn’t have *been *a WW2 in the first place without a Communist Russia. The rise of Hitler (and the appeasement of same by other European powers) was mostly predicated on an imagined dire necessity of Holding Back the Reds - and not just the Russians, but all the local rad-soc groups inspired by the Russian Revolution and its ideals. No communists, no fanatical reactionaries.
Well, this YouTube video discusses what if the Russian Revolution never happened. It doesn’t go directly into what you are asking, but kind of sets it up. Basically for a non-Communist Russia to exist either the Tzar would have had to remain in power (somehow) or the Provisional Government would have needed to retain power (which meant they needed to halt the war with Germany). The latter is the more likely, to me (and to the guy doing the video), since the war was certainly unpopular, and essentially it was continuing that war that brought the Bolshevist movement to power.
Of course, either of these things happening would have radically changed world history, and I doubt that the Nazis and Hitler, who came to power not just because of Jews but because of the rise of Communism, would have happened. However, assuming the Provisional Government managed to hold onto power and expand, and some basic assumptions on what they would have done and how it would turn out. Assuming it turned out OK, I doubt Russia would have been perceived as enough of a threat for Germany to want to invade them during WWII. They probably wouldn’t have been as industrialized and would have been a lot more moderate and way less threatening. That said, if Germany DID invade I think the Russia people would have been behind the new government at least as much if not more so than they were behind Stalin (which wouldn’t have been hard, since initial many Russians actually looked to the Germans as liberators, at least initially until German brutality kind of changed their minds). I think that the Russia government would have had less technological and industrial tools to defend themselves, but would have had a lot more international support and internal support to fight such an invasion…and, probably, less completely incompetent initial leadership either on the government or military side of things, which pissed away a lot of Russian military strength in the early stages of WWII and nearly lost it all for them.
In WWI it didn’t start out too bad for the Russian Empire, but in the end things didn’t go so well for them. Assuming the Revolution hadn’t happened after the WWI then WWII might have been the stage for those events.
What the author says makes some sense from comparing the last years of the Russian Empire to those early years of the Soviet Empire. But I have no idea how Russia would have turned out if not for the Soviets. They could have become an economic powerhouse with a higher standard of living and been able to counter Germany even more effectively than Stalin did. If they maintained military strength by sheer numbers they could have had a massive army that actually had training, weapons, and food. OTOH if the masses still lived in poverty subject to Cossack political repression they probably wouldn’t have so readily laid down their lives for the Tsar.
If – ceteris paribus – all things are pretty much the same, but Russia is a parliamentary democracy when the Nazi tanks roll in…I think they might simply have surrendered after the overwhelming losses of the first two months of the campaign.
Democracies have less stomach for war. The Russian parliament might simply have made terms with Germany, similar to what happened with France.
Totally disagree with this. I don’t see why you believe that ‘Democracies have less stomach for war’…that’s exactly the same thinking that Hitler and Tojo used to bring the US into the war. Didn’t seem to have worked out well for them. As for France, that was a combination of factors that lead to the surrender, with almost none of it having to do with democracy. Mostly it was weariness from the first World War coupled with poor strategic planning and basically being so far out of position to make further resistance futile. Those things have nothing to do with democracy.
What really fried my noodle was when I found that in WWI the Kaiser not only helped Lenin to go back to Russia to start his revolt against the Tzar, the Germans also helped Lenin with weapons and money, the idea by the Germans was to indeed weaken Russia so they would stop making war with Germany during WWI.
This presupposes that everything else in history remains the same except there is no USSR (and also presupposes that Russia under the Provisional Government or whatever they called themselves wouldn’t have industrialized either, though that’s perhaps a good bet since they did seem more agriculturally oriented). You might or might not have been born in the butterfly effect alternative universe but I think the base assumptions are flawed. Russia would have had a much less contentious relationship with the rest of the west and the rest of the world. They would have had MUCH better trade relations, for instance, with the US and western Europe. There wouldn’t have been a rash of communist revolutions or communist revolutionary thought throughout the world which would have changed perceptions as well. Russia is a resource rich nation, as can be seen today, so it’s possible that even if Russia didn’t force an industrial revolution it would have come anyway, as other nations would have wanted to partner to exploit resources.
Basically, I don’t think that there would be a WWII without the Communist USSR taking control in Russia, since it would shift the whole dynamic of post war Germany and would have taken a lot of the steam out of the Nazi party. There might have been other wars (almost certainly would have been, Europeans being Europeans after all), but I doubt Russia would have even been involved, since I doubt whatever the Provisional Government becoming they would be that interested in them (this assumes they didn’t pursue the war with Germany in WWI of course). The ripple effects from this would be world changing, and certainly would have been profound for the Russian people and their relationship with the rest of the world.
This…and Stalins invasions all along their western frontier left the new borders undefended allowing the nazis to capture 3 million soviet soldiers in the first weeks of the war. No communists and no German allies in Finland, Hingary and Romania. No Soviets and no secret German military research and development all through the 30’s; maybe no massive supply of raw materials to Germany. No purge of Russian science.
Yeah, much of the German tank development especially was in secret and was done with the Soviets partnering and providing a place they could develop stuff while still under the treaty (they weren’t supposed to develop tanks at all). This question especially is all about the butterfly effect, since this would have been a profound change to the region, let alone the world, and nothing would have been the same. You can’t take the Soviets out of the equation and then work from there as if history would have still happened as it did, because nothing would have been the same.
Neither the US or UK had their territory invaded directly though, and certainly not to the massive extent of the USSR.
I’m not suggesting paramilitary democracy is weak, just that it wasn’t tested to the same extent and in the same way as the Soviet Union.
Just as an example of the tone of the book, “The supply of ammunition swelled too. Output was almost three times that of 1941, and quality improved greatly. Consumption in the Soviet offensives was matched, even outmatched, by the supply. That the war industries coped with the demand is distinct evidence of the superiority of socalist over capitalist economy. Nazi Germany, for example, had far greater material resources, for in 1943 her supplies surpassed the Soviet Union’s more than three-fold in coal, 2.4 fold in steel and 2.3 fold in electric power. Yet her manufacturing industries produced far less.” (p213)
It is clear that the Soviet Union did outproduce Nazi Germany, I suppose the question is to what extent was that socialism versus capitalism or other factors.
I would have thought literacy would be a problem. It was low under the Tzars and the communists worked on a literacy program. If you want a modern war capability I would think literacy is the essential basic requirement.
Would Tzarist Russia ever want to educate the peasantry ?
Bringing a bit of levity into a serious, and very interesting, thread: am reminded of something seen on SDMB in the past few years (would seek it out if I had any idea how to) – was in a thread about crazy and ignorant stuff which people had heard from schoolteachers who had no business to be in that profession.
Told by a “history” teacher: Tzar Nicholas II and his advisors deliberately set things up for the Bolshevik Revolution to take place (including the liquidation of N II himself and his family, and many of the Russian nobility), out of self-sacrificing patriotism: because they were aware that their feeble regime would not be able to hold against the German onslaught in the World War II which would happen in the future – that would require a truly iron-hard dictatorship with an all-powerful and totally ruthless leader; both, likely, needing to be Communist.
One might say – here’s one, particularly, for the conspiracy-theories file: involving the ability to foresee the future, more than most CTs seem to do.
the difference in production had little to do with capitalism/socialism…it had to do with mass production. The USSR and the USA embraced mass production while the Germans utilized a bureaucratized economy.
Not just that, most of Stalins strategic decisions were disastrous. The Soviet Union won DESPITE Stalin’s regime not because of it. The size of the soviet union and the unimaginable sacrifice of the ordinary people was enough to make up those blunders.