Japanese-Soviet war[]
Japan was reluctant to going at war to the Soviet Union OTL after the defeat in 1939, and even honoured their non-agression pact of 1941 (April 13) more than the tri-partite pact (Axis pact) with Germany. Japan was reluctant to declare war to the USSR as response from Germany declaring war to the USA.
So far, with the exception of the internal Soviet organization on the military and military-oriented industry after the end of the Winter war, nothing much has changed outside Soviet borders, including Soviet agreements, before 20 May, 1941.
If Japan did not go to war with the Soviet Union OTL, when the Soviet Union seemed to be loosing at December 1941, why would they now that the situation is unclear and Germany had not declared war to the USA?
Soviet existence today[]
I would not like to propose the existence of the Soviet Union up to today in this ATL. The Soviet Union did not felt OTL because it was not big or strong enough, but because their economy was outcompeted. So far I had not outlined the post-war to see if the Soviet Union is viable in this ATL.
- About the latter, the Soviet union had lost less men ATL, and had managed to defeat the Wehrmacht nearly single-handedly to boot. They also have an atomic bomb at the same time as the US, so i would think that the Soviets are in a much stronger position ATL. Buk5 17:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let's say they have the atomic bomb earlier (how did it come? better spies? better scientists?)... the Soviet Union did not felt OTL because it was weak but because the system did not allowed her to compete as a superpower while keeping live standards paired to the capitalistic west. I haven't gone through the the 1950's, 60's, 70's, and 80's yet, to see how history develops. There could be or not a Soviet Union. Just having her stronger does not help. Actually strength might lead to stagnation which would cause an earlier collapse.
- —Carlos Th (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would say that after Thunderstorm, Stalin would order an A-bomb programme to commence and have the Soviet spies in the Manhattan Project activate to feed back information.
And it would be interesting to see how a cold war would go, with both powers having nukes. Buk5 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- The USSR could survive if it became like OTL.China: very slow economic reforms, while all the time keeping the strict political repression, the censorship, and the one-party rule in place. In Russian terms, you could have a slow-moving perestroika without glasnost. So something would have to happen to make the leadership more amenable to allowing some capitalism into the Soviet economy. Khrushchev was a reformer. Maybe Russia's closer relationship with Britain could have somehow motivated him to take steps toward perestroika. And Khrushchev's successor could be another reformer, rather than a hard-liner like Brezhnev, who could have continued the process of liberalization. Benkarnell 19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Here is my proposal:
- Soviet Nuclear Program is more advanced than OTL, but still behind the US program. They had the advantage of always having enough territory to set bases and develop, but most of their earlier advances still come from espionage. The Soviets detonate their first device some sixt to eight months later than the Americans.
- The Soviet Union does declare war to Japan in earlier 1945. While not the knock out from OTL, it was a decisive point for the allies as it helps driving the Japanese out of Asia.
- Nuclear bombs are not used over Japan. As Americans learn on the Soviet nuclear program, they decide not to detonate their devices before gathering a small nuclear arsenal. Japan surrenders first.
- The Soviet Union (which is indeed stronger) suffers a series of Reforms similar to China OTL, which leads to modernize her economy to compete with the West, while still being a one-party system.
- —Carlos Th (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Here is my proposal: