The USA and USR are ISOTed to a virgin earth together.
1941 United States and Soviet Union ISOTed to the same virgin earth together
- Thread starter TheDetailer
- Start date
- Post-1900
- Created
- Status
- Ongoing
- Watchers
- 19
- Recent readers
- 0
- Threadmarks
- 1
-
Statistics (1 threadmarks, 160 words)
User Total TheDetailer 1 Threadmarks Reader mode
OP
(A/N: Hi! This is my first thread on here! Hopefully I'm doing this all right.)
The United States of America from December 7th, 1941, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from June 22nd, 1941, including all of their citizens, infrastructure, territories (including the Philippines, Mongolia, and Tannu Tuva), and visitors are both ISOTed mere moments before their respective attacks by the Axis Powers to the same virgin earth together. To give them an extra boost to boot, all of their natural and non-renewable resources (I.e Coal, Oil, Steel, Iron, etc.) are reset to that if the virgin earth's.
What happens next? How do the United States and Soviet Union react and respond to this event? Will the Cold War still happen or will it be strangled in the crib because of this event? Or would it happen in a different way from how we know it IOTL? What does the World look like after the ISOT?
The United States of America from December 7th, 1941, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from June 22nd, 1941, including all of their citizens, infrastructure, territories (including the Philippines, Mongolia, and Tannu Tuva), and visitors are both ISOTed mere moments before their respective attacks by the Axis Powers to the same virgin earth together. To give them an extra boost to boot, all of their natural and non-renewable resources (I.e Coal, Oil, Steel, Iron, etc.) are reset to that if the virgin earth's.
What happens next? How do the United States and Soviet Union react and respond to this event? Will the Cold War still happen or will it be strangled in the crib because of this event? Or would it happen in a different way from how we know it IOTL? What does the World look like after the ISOT?
- Location
- Portugal
For the USSR, they would march west and south into the lush lands of Europe and China. And then further on, as it was never damaged by the nazi invasion. Moreover the USSR would seek to settle Europe, which has a far better climate and seasons than Russia proper which would provide a huge boost to its economy.
A Cold War would still happen, though now with "scramble for the world" included, but tilted towards the USA because of the philippines which is a game changer because it has vast natural resources, a 17 million strong population, and the anti-US nationalists had been suppressed. Tuva and Mongolia had only a couple hundred thousand pops, which is why they were so easily puppet-fied by the USSR.
The Philippines would become even more powerful by absorbing the equally resource rich SEA and Indonesia.
A Cold War would still happen, though now with "scramble for the world" included, but tilted towards the USA because of the philippines which is a game changer because it has vast natural resources, a 17 million strong population, and the anti-US nationalists had been suppressed. Tuva and Mongolia had only a couple hundred thousand pops, which is why they were so easily puppet-fied by the USSR.
The Philippines would become even more powerful by absorbing the equally resource rich SEA and Indonesia.
USSR has something of an advantage here.
The US is built on an international trade network, a financial empire that has mostly vanished and they are just barely at a point of internal stability (there was a coup attempt in 1933) due to how much certain absurdly wealthy people hated the New Deal. The USA is going to be an absolute mess.
The USSR is fairly used to economic hostility and isolation due to their history. They have experience with rapid widespread industrialization.
In theory the US has the better industry but they are going to struggle with various internal issues which the USSR is mostly immune to
The US is built on an international trade network, a financial empire that has mostly vanished and they are just barely at a point of internal stability (there was a coup attempt in 1933) due to how much certain absurdly wealthy people hated the New Deal. The USA is going to be an absolute mess.
The USSR is fairly used to economic hostility and isolation due to their history. They have experience with rapid widespread industrialization.
In theory the US has the better industry but they are going to struggle with various internal issues which the USSR is mostly immune to
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
The United States had committed to granting the Philippines independence by 1943, and was probably going to do so. The Philippines will be a valuable asset as an ally nonetheless.
On the one hand the Soviet command economy probably is better positioned for an ISOT than the American economy, but the late New Deal is a time of relative government intervention in the economy and I don't doubt that Roosevelt would act swiftly to institute necessary economic controls. Indeed the New Deal is likely to continue and intensify, with the addition of colonization projects creating new jobs for out of work Americans.
As far as a Cold War, it needn't be cold. Neither country has nuclear weapons, neither has a history fighting alongside each other, neither has experienced the full* horrors of the Second World War, and I question that the USA and USSR would be able to peacefully divide up the globe. It's likely that a conventional war breaks out between the two some time over the next 5-10 years when their colonial ambitions start colliding in Europe and Asia.
On the one hand the Soviet command economy probably is better positioned for an ISOT than the American economy, but the late New Deal is a time of relative government intervention in the economy and I don't doubt that Roosevelt would act swiftly to institute necessary economic controls. Indeed the New Deal is likely to continue and intensify, with the addition of colonization projects creating new jobs for out of work Americans.
As far as a Cold War, it needn't be cold. Neither country has nuclear weapons, neither has a history fighting alongside each other, neither has experienced the full* horrors of the Second World War, and I question that the USA and USSR would be able to peacefully divide up the globe. It's likely that a conventional war breaks out between the two some time over the next 5-10 years when their colonial ambitions start colliding in Europe and Asia.
Positionwise the USSR has the huge advantage, as they can march west to Europe and East to Asia, then south to Africa even. And the USA's power projection capability is based on it's Navy, so it wouldn't be in a position to stop them that way. The US used strategic alliances with partner nations to deter ground-based soviet expansion, but that would be unavailable.
If the US wanted a decisive victory the US's best shot would be finishing the Manhatten Project and then strategic nuclear bombardment of the Soviet industrial centres. It wouldn't take that many bombs to cripple the Soviet ability to do much, especially if delivered by aircraft carrier and long range bombers. If you consider there were hundreds of airborne nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s it wouldn't even damage the environment, really.
The other shot is to simply ignore them and scramble for western Africa in the DR Congo area, immediately. There is a good chance that without the pressure of an existential threat like WW2 the Soviet economic system would collapse under its own weight. The patriotism of an external threat did a lot of work in Russia. I think there is a very good chance there would be coup d'etats in USSR without the Nazis to focus all of their attention on.
If the US wanted a decisive victory the US's best shot would be finishing the Manhatten Project and then strategic nuclear bombardment of the Soviet industrial centres. It wouldn't take that many bombs to cripple the Soviet ability to do much, especially if delivered by aircraft carrier and long range bombers. If you consider there were hundreds of airborne nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s it wouldn't even damage the environment, really.
The other shot is to simply ignore them and scramble for western Africa in the DR Congo area, immediately. There is a good chance that without the pressure of an existential threat like WW2 the Soviet economic system would collapse under its own weight. The patriotism of an external threat did a lot of work in Russia. I think there is a very good chance there would be coup d'etats in USSR without the Nazis to focus all of their attention on.
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
Worth keeping in mind that projecting power overland requires the existence of roads and railroads that need to be constructed. The USSR does have an advantage, but if the USA establishes a base at the mouth of the Rhine or the location of OTL Shanghai they can supply/reinforce/defend that base via sea, while the Soviets won't be able to attack it via land until they've blazed a fairly substantial transport network through the wilderness.
And of course this is the USSR of 1941 whose military is... not in fantastic shape.
And of course this is the USSR of 1941 whose military is... not in fantastic shape.
That's a good point. Perhaps the US should instead seek to colonize all the simply accessible areas that give such an advantage they can without the USSR complaining. Probably couldn't get the straits in the Black Sea without the USSR declaring war, but might be able to get Taiwan, Shanghai and Iran for the Hormuz. But the thing is, it would be a cost. I mean, both those locations are great but it's not like EITHER the USSR or USA needs oil. The Soviet Navy was kind of crap, as was their merchant marine.
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
I'd expect both the USA and USSR to focus on settling the empty land immediately adjacent to them, but I'd also expect them to establish small outposts/bases/forts in distant areas that they can't settle yet so as to establish territorial claims and lay the foundations for future colonies. It's about denying resources to the other country and hopefully securing future resources for yourself. For the USA that means forts in Western Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and also places like the Isthmus of Suez and key spots in Africa (US control over the Americas is kind of a given). For the USSR that... also means forts in Western Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and also places like the Isthmus of Suez and key spots in Africa. Such bases would mostly be coastal or on major river networks so that they can be supplied by sea. While a few may be further inland, these will also rely on supplies shipped to coastal bases and then transported overland via trucks and/or animal power. Of course while sea power is vital to maintain distant outposts, actually invading someone's core territories or defending your outposts/real colonies should the other country's settled area reach them means that land power is still important.
I suspect conflict would start with low-level raids between forts in areas claimed by both the USA and USSR and go from there.
I suspect conflict would start with low-level raids between forts in areas claimed by both the USA and USSR and go from there.
- Location
- UK
As I see it, and several have mentioned it, there are several issues:
1. Transportation/power projection. Here the US is in a much better state due to their large fleet, so they can do better. Any expansion will likely focus on the coasts and up rivers, however, most European rivers have not been tamed, so floods and such would be a significant issue. If the Panama canal comes with the US, that helps, but that is also a headache, since you need people there to operate it and supply things. Some early flare ups might be Japan and the British Isles, but since Suez canal does not exists, the Mediterranean Sea would likely be Soviet.
2. Population. Looking at wiki, the total population of the two countries would be around 350 million, with about 200 million in the USSR, rest in US. So there might be flare-ups, but most of those would be isolated and limited to specific forts, since there would not be enough people to hold territory. The US would have to integrate its minorities and push for a large population growth, but the Russians would have a significant advantage, both the larger population and socialist practices (child care for example). So small outposts in critical places, but not much else until numbers go up.
So what would be the starting goals? For the US, likely claiming and setting up some outposts around Central and South America, and most islands in the Pacific to link up dependencies. Africa, South East Asian, China all would be future issues, with some forts placed in areas, but something for future generations.
For the USSR, claiming the North Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, probably rushing a fort to Gibraltar and maybe pushing to establish a fort in the British Isles or France. On the east, likely go for Korea/Japan as a way to expand their influence.
Navy and Airforce would be the main power projection on both sides, army is not too useful since there are no roads/railroads to transport them.
Edit:
The US might be worse off for a while:
1. Scattered forces and outposts, without the friendly support areas and refueling options on the connection. Also, limited long-distance communication.
2. Likely a lot of colonialist ventures, both individual and company sponsored, would be started, and these would have their own conflicts and such. How many people would love to get their hands on a free farm/land/gold/etc?
1. Transportation/power projection. Here the US is in a much better state due to their large fleet, so they can do better. Any expansion will likely focus on the coasts and up rivers, however, most European rivers have not been tamed, so floods and such would be a significant issue. If the Panama canal comes with the US, that helps, but that is also a headache, since you need people there to operate it and supply things. Some early flare ups might be Japan and the British Isles, but since Suez canal does not exists, the Mediterranean Sea would likely be Soviet.
2. Population. Looking at wiki, the total population of the two countries would be around 350 million, with about 200 million in the USSR, rest in US. So there might be flare-ups, but most of those would be isolated and limited to specific forts, since there would not be enough people to hold territory. The US would have to integrate its minorities and push for a large population growth, but the Russians would have a significant advantage, both the larger population and socialist practices (child care for example). So small outposts in critical places, but not much else until numbers go up.
So what would be the starting goals? For the US, likely claiming and setting up some outposts around Central and South America, and most islands in the Pacific to link up dependencies. Africa, South East Asian, China all would be future issues, with some forts placed in areas, but something for future generations.
For the USSR, claiming the North Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, probably rushing a fort to Gibraltar and maybe pushing to establish a fort in the British Isles or France. On the east, likely go for Korea/Japan as a way to expand their influence.
Navy and Airforce would be the main power projection on both sides, army is not too useful since there are no roads/railroads to transport them.
Edit:
The US might be worse off for a while:
1. Scattered forces and outposts, without the friendly support areas and refueling options on the connection. Also, limited long-distance communication.
2. Likely a lot of colonialist ventures, both individual and company sponsored, would be started, and these would have their own conflicts and such. How many people would love to get their hands on a free farm/land/gold/etc?
Last edited:
I notice people are talking about combat. There is no reason for immediate conflict. This is preWWII, not post, so there is some mistrust, but not the red-terror nuke fears of after.
Economically, the US would be a powerhouse. The US has rivers and locks, as well as barrier island chains, which make transport cheap and easy.
For reference:
View: https://youtu.be/BubAF7KSs64
Add in that in isolationist 1941 US the country produced nearly all the goods it needed. While there was international trade and the beginnings of globalization, it was minor compared to today.
No need for computer chips made of materials from 5 countries and assembled in another. They could, and did, make it all themselves.
USSR is still largely a peasant oriented economy in many parts. It had just undergone an artificial famine and genocide in Ukraine. Agricultural technology wouldn't really boom until later in the 20th century. Sure there were parts that were industrializing with some very dense urban centers, but largely it is very empty.
Everything for them depends on the railway. If it goes down for any reason trade and transport stops until it is repaired.
If it is destroyed for some reason (natural disaster, Herd of Wooly Mammoths, sabotage, etc...), expect to see divisions between western and eastern parts of the USSR in the subsequent decades.
Alaska, being so close to Russia, would be a vital spot for refuling, trade, and defense. The Philippines would probably be seen as a similar spot between Russia and other Pacific US territories, but I would expect them to chafe, especially if the US decides to reneg on the deal. As the US has a pretty terrible record of keeping deals with indigenous peoples, it is not outside of the realm of possibility.
I don't see FDR breaking that deal, but that is still a possibility.
Key for conflict would be Stalin's ego. Before he took power, there was actually a lot of scientific knowledge passed back and forth between the two nations.
I don't see the isolationists of the US starting conflict. If anything I'd see them as crowing about how they were right.
Without the pressures of Nazis and Imperial Japan to prompt building a nuke, I don't anticipate an immediate replay of the Cold War.
Economically, the US would be a powerhouse. The US has rivers and locks, as well as barrier island chains, which make transport cheap and easy.
For reference:
View: https://youtu.be/BubAF7KSs64
Add in that in isolationist 1941 US the country produced nearly all the goods it needed. While there was international trade and the beginnings of globalization, it was minor compared to today.
No need for computer chips made of materials from 5 countries and assembled in another. They could, and did, make it all themselves.
USSR is still largely a peasant oriented economy in many parts. It had just undergone an artificial famine and genocide in Ukraine. Agricultural technology wouldn't really boom until later in the 20th century. Sure there were parts that were industrializing with some very dense urban centers, but largely it is very empty.
Everything for them depends on the railway. If it goes down for any reason trade and transport stops until it is repaired.
If it is destroyed for some reason (natural disaster, Herd of Wooly Mammoths, sabotage, etc...), expect to see divisions between western and eastern parts of the USSR in the subsequent decades.
Alaska, being so close to Russia, would be a vital spot for refuling, trade, and defense. The Philippines would probably be seen as a similar spot between Russia and other Pacific US territories, but I would expect them to chafe, especially if the US decides to reneg on the deal. As the US has a pretty terrible record of keeping deals with indigenous peoples, it is not outside of the realm of possibility.
I don't see FDR breaking that deal, but that is still a possibility.
Key for conflict would be Stalin's ego. Before he took power, there was actually a lot of scientific knowledge passed back and forth between the two nations.
I don't see the isolationists of the US starting conflict. If anything I'd see them as crowing about how they were right.
Without the pressures of Nazis and Imperial Japan to prompt building a nuke, I don't anticipate an immediate replay of the Cold War.
One of the reasons for the forced famines was due to needing to buy Equipment and manufacturing dies for manufacturing as the USSR had almost no ability to manufacture its own masters or produce the high-grade tool steel needed to make them during the war much of that capability was imported and retained however in 41 even dec 31 41 it hadn't happened yet.
So while the USSR would have significant natural resources and much of its simpler manufacturing intact it would still have no access to german scientists, and rubber. While the US would also have no german scientists except those that had fled pre-war.
If were taking the US's bases as still being there even if everything around them vanished it means all the bases/islands the British sold/turned over the leases as part of the cash and carry program then lend lease it gives the US a significant advantage.
Also the US was the world leader right next to Briton for heavy equipment so while the over seas commercial assets and supply chains are gone for aluminum for instance or rubber it could be restored in relatively short order.
On a separate note if this is a virgin people-free earth we have to remember that cultivated plants that have no or very little domestic samples such as nutmeg, bananas, coffee, and everything from South America, India, and the dutch east indies, no longer exist.
So while the USSR would have significant natural resources and much of its simpler manufacturing intact it would still have no access to german scientists, and rubber. While the US would also have no german scientists except those that had fled pre-war.
If were taking the US's bases as still being there even if everything around them vanished it means all the bases/islands the British sold/turned over the leases as part of the cash and carry program then lend lease it gives the US a significant advantage.
Also the US was the world leader right next to Briton for heavy equipment so while the over seas commercial assets and supply chains are gone for aluminum for instance or rubber it could be restored in relatively short order.
On a separate note if this is a virgin people-free earth we have to remember that cultivated plants that have no or very little domestic samples such as nutmeg, bananas, coffee, and everything from South America, India, and the dutch east indies, no longer exist.
Not exactly. Hawaii is already a tropical agricultural territory by this point. A lot of things, spices and fruit especially, are grown there which can be transported to other regions and grown.
But how much besides what grew natively on the Hawaiian island is there? while there would undoubtedly be seeds or samples of peppers or exotic fruit they don't exist in the numbers to be useful. Take cinnamon, for instance, it doesn't grow in north America or not in any more than a few trees so until it's cultivated again it's gone. Any fruits or vegetables that weren't kept in greenhouses or grew natively were never developed. people don't seem to realize almost all the plants we eat are cultivated even 'wild' varieties have been shown to be from domesticated origins. there are of course exceptions to this.
How about Rubber? while the trees certainly exist they are wild and not easy to get to so again until they are cultivated again and orchards planted there will be no global source of rubber unless the Philippines are included in America's assets and are as such a strategic resource for industry and military purposes. Also, Rubber is native to South America.
In fact of all resources the two that would be most important would likely be rubber and oil and Russia has its own supply so if it annexes the middle east first the US would have to trade for it likely demanding things to industrialize and rubber but if the US could get there first it would be self sustaining.
On the other hand by 41 the work to begin the manhattan project were being discussed but wouldn't start until 42 so without a ready external source of oil nuclear energy might be seen as a viable alternative.
EBR
Self-Requested Ban
- Location
- Khazaria
Synthetic rubber was invented in the thirties in the US and Germany. The USA of the '40s doesn't need rubber trees. It will have shortages of some important luxury goods at least in the short-medium term, though.
The United States was an oil exporter in the 1930s- Japan was a major buyer of American oil before the war- and has easy access to additional oil fields in Venezuela and Indonesia that can more than meet demand without the Middle East. I doubt that either the US or USSR will lack for oil.
It should be noted that the Saudi oild fields were only discovered in 1938. While they know there's oil there, they don't know how much, especially not so as to start a race to control it.
Yeah, I don't think there'd be a fight in the immediate future, with so much empty territory there'd be little reason for it. Plus, it'd be difficult for them to invade each other even if they wanted to; they start out mostly separated by huge oceans and vast swathes of uninhabited territory with no transportation infrastructure. They'd probably just divide up the world with the USSR getting Eurasia and the parts of Africa north of the equator and the USA getting everything else or something like that and spend the next half century focusing on developing all that uninhabited territory. This world is probably still going to have less than a billion people and vast swathes of thinly inhabited territory in the year 2000.
Really, this world is so empty I doubt that would be a serious problem either, at least in the near term (like, before 2000). It's not like the Soviets really need Ireland, Israel, any land in eastern China the Philippinos might be inclined to settle, etc., trying to evict or conquer "squatter colonies" would probably be more trouble than it's worth, and if the Soviets make an issue of it you can just sell them Australia and some extra parts of Africa or something to compensate.
I could actually see the Soviet Union trying to persuade such colonists to come and join the USSR under some "one country, multiple systems" type deal or establish independent states allied with the USSR (separated from the USSR by thousands of kilometers of thinly inhabited territory, they'd have a lot of autonomy by default). People on the land would be an asset as long as they weren't outright hostile.
- Location
- UK
Yes, it would not be a serious problem, just low level (probably a couple hundred people at most) conflicts. And once both sides figure out that there are only those two countries there, most issues would be solved by talking, since people will be very valuable. I imagine the US would move somewhat to the left, with incentives and help for large families.
Shaithan
Re-class is happiest class
- Location
- The worst part of Germany
You really need to figure in that this is a virgin earth. Like, I seriously doubt that a hundred years on there's a lot of settling going on in a lot of places.
It's not like the prospective settlers will move into territory where they could benefit from earlier attempts to make the land habitable. No ways, no managing of the land, nothing. They'd start out in actual wilderness and driving actual wilderness back is a bonebreaking job. Most people would have little interest in leaving civilization behind for good.
Colonization efforts would basically be immediately across the respective borders, but things like American outposts in Europe? I consider those exceedingly unlikely, for the simple reason that supplying them by sea would already be difficult. To supply a colony across the sea, they'd basically have to establish harbor infrastructure in the colony as the contemporary freighters relied on such infrastructure. In that regard, the USSR does have it easier, as they have two prime expansion targets and building up infrastructure in more forgiving wilderness is something they can do easier than the Americans can build up a harbor.
Another thing to consider is that the demographic change is coming. Larger families with lots of children are on their way out in both the USSR and the USA. The US is also cut off from the steady stream of migration that allowed its numbers to swell.
Any colonies established far from the mother country are likely to be extremely poor, prone to failure and generally set up by cranks who want to get away from the mother country for one reason or another.
As far as building up and expanding goes, the Philippines are the ones that might have an advantage. It'll still be difficult, but they have a growing population, good expansion options and neither the Americans nor the Soviets will be paying much attention to their efforts, the main thing the Americans will be interested in is securing the Philippines as a permanent "ally."
It's not like the prospective settlers will move into territory where they could benefit from earlier attempts to make the land habitable. No ways, no managing of the land, nothing. They'd start out in actual wilderness and driving actual wilderness back is a bonebreaking job. Most people would have little interest in leaving civilization behind for good.
Colonization efforts would basically be immediately across the respective borders, but things like American outposts in Europe? I consider those exceedingly unlikely, for the simple reason that supplying them by sea would already be difficult. To supply a colony across the sea, they'd basically have to establish harbor infrastructure in the colony as the contemporary freighters relied on such infrastructure. In that regard, the USSR does have it easier, as they have two prime expansion targets and building up infrastructure in more forgiving wilderness is something they can do easier than the Americans can build up a harbor.
Another thing to consider is that the demographic change is coming. Larger families with lots of children are on their way out in both the USSR and the USA. The US is also cut off from the steady stream of migration that allowed its numbers to swell.
Any colonies established far from the mother country are likely to be extremely poor, prone to failure and generally set up by cranks who want to get away from the mother country for one reason or another.
As far as building up and expanding goes, the Philippines are the ones that might have an advantage. It'll still be difficult, but they have a growing population, good expansion options and neither the Americans nor the Soviets will be paying much attention to their efforts, the main thing the Americans will be interested in is securing the Philippines as a permanent "ally."