On 27 October 1951, the US magazine Collier’s devoted an entire 130-page issue to the theme of “Russia’s Defeat and Occupation, 1952-1960; Preview of the War We Do Not Want.” The cover showed an American soldier in a helmet emblazoned with US and UN insignia, reading MP (Military Police) Occupation Forces.
Collier’s Magazine devoted 60,000 words to the hypothetical aftermath of a Third World War, which would start in 1952 and in which the US and UN would defeat the Soviet Union. The articles described, among others, an “A-Bomb Mission to Moscow” (the famous broadcaster Edward R. Murrow writing about a hypothetical B-36 raid destroying the Soviet capital from an ‘embedded’ perspective).
In the introduction, Collier’s proclaimed that it had chosen this theme: “To warn the evil masters of the Russian people that their conspiracy to enslave humanity is the dark, downhill road to World War III; to sound a powerful call for reason and understanding between the peoples of East and West — before it’s too late; to demonstrate that if the war we do not want is forced upon us, we will win.”
According to Collier’s scenario, World War Three would start with an attempted assassination of Yugoslavia’s leader, Marshal Tito (a communist but also a maverick, for refusing to align his country with the Soviets). This would lead to an uprising in Yugoslavia and to its invasion by (Kremlin-loyal) Warsaw Pact armies. It is not clear from the magazine cover how the US/UN victory would work out on the ground.
The map behind the soldier shows the UN flag flying over Moscow, with the Eastern Bloc countries, the Baltic Soviet republics and Ukraine (but not Belarus) marked as ‘occupied’. Does this leave the rest of the Soviet Union as ‘unoccupied’, or ‘less occupied’, while Moscow nevertheless is under US/UN control?
There should be only one L in “Marshal Tito” – it was his rank, not his first name!
Comment by Crazy Jane's Nephew — January 24, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
It would be cool to read the whole issue — might have to track it down online somewhere.
Comment by Celsius1414 — January 24, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
@ Crazy Jane’s Nephew:
Right, thanks!
@ Celsius1414:
Couldn’t find it, maybe somebody else could?
Comment by strangemaps — January 24, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
Well, here’s a summary of the events depicted in the magazine:
http://conelrad.com/books/flyleaf.php?id=321_0_1_0_M7
Deeper googling is required, or a trip to the library. :)
Comment by Celsius1414 — January 24, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
Yeah, right, they would certainly defeat USSR.
Comment by Dude — January 24, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Looks like Lithuania got East Prussia / Kaliningrad out of it. Also, Moldova’s borders are there but no name.
Comment by John — January 25, 2009 @ 12:19 am
I love the geographical tidbits this blog offers.
Comment by Tuzz — January 25, 2009 @ 1:28 am
It looks like the Crimean War.
Comment by Faust — January 25, 2009 @ 2:00 am
warsaw pact started in 1955 – meaning 4 years after.
guys from collier’s meant soviet army stand alone, i guess
Comment by kulukmak — January 25, 2009 @ 3:23 am
The U.S. invasion of Russia happens in other ways every day. Like this one: http://31dreamers.blogspot.com/2009/01/blog-post.html
Comment by Morgan — January 25, 2009 @ 3:51 am
The “occupied” vs “unoccupied” could have been similar to the situation in France during the first part of WWII, split between occupied France and unoccupied (“Vichy”) France.
Comment by Todd Larason — January 25, 2009 @ 4:46 am
[...] Strange Maps: The World War That Never Happened: US Occupies USSR [...]
Pingback by igorbrejc.net » Fresh Catch For January 25th — January 25, 2009 @ 11:00 am
The only way that the US could have beaten the USSR in the fifties or, indeed, at later times would have been through massive use of nuclear weapons. This was because of the massive superiority the Russians enjoyed in terms of their conventional weapons. The point becomes clear when it is noted that the great majority of German losses during WWII occurred on the East Front.
Comment by Konrad Talmont-Kaminski — January 25, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
@Konrad:
Sure, the war on the eastern front was longer by 3 years…
Comment by Yuval — January 25, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
I remember seeing this when it first appeared and feeling sick.
Surprising that it doesn’t show Finland recovering the territory it lost in the Winter War of 1939-40.
Comment by Dan Milton — January 25, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
This is definitely interesting. Seems like it could be the basis for an alternate history novel.
Comment by dgarman — January 25, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
i hope it won’t happen again.. world war 3 is enough.. all countries must unite..
Comment by den — January 25, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Little known fact:
Bertrand Russell, the world famous philosopher, educationalist, pacifist and anti-Vietnam war campaigner actually argued for nuclear war on the Soviet Union – in 1948 I think it was.
Yes – it is a bit surprising isn’t it?
I think his logic was that this was the only way of ensuring that an anti-war international system could be created, and the scourge of nuclear war destroying the whole of humanity (once the Soviets developed the bomb themselves).
Makes you think certainly as we now face an uncertain future.
Regarding the map, doesn’t look to me like Finland has taken the opportunity to grab back Karelia. I’d have thought they would be in there like a shot, given the opportunity.
Comment by marisbo — January 26, 2009 @ 1:25 am
Finland was with the Axis during WWII. Not necessarily because they wanted to, but because they were against Russia. Would explain why they weren’t allowed (in the fiction) to expand their territory eastward.
Comment by godozo — January 26, 2009 @ 4:23 am
Something tells me that the “omission” of Belarus is owed more to the fact that the work order to the graphic artist did not mention its existence. Notice also that all the Caucasus SSR are missing. This is, I believe, testimony to the overall quality of this publication.
Comment by kaz_taj — January 26, 2009 @ 7:30 am
On this map Ukraine already has Crimea
That’s a prophetic bit!
Actual transfer took place more than 2 years later
Comment by Miteque — January 26, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Godozo –
What you say is basically true but at the beginning of WW2 it was neutral and was attacked by the Soviet Union following the Nazi-Soveit pact. Britain actually backed Finland to begin with.
I think in reality that by the beginning of the 1950s the US would have been only too happy to offer Karelia back to the Finns to get them to open up a northern front against the Soviets.
However, it’s all speculation, so who can say for sure.
Comment by marisbo — January 26, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
I think kaz_taj (20) got it exactly right by saying that the numerous errors on the map are probably indicative of the quality of the whole publication.
Comment by Konrad Talmont-Kaminski — January 26, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Another error on the map is the fact that the Soviet Union is labeled “Union of Socialist Soviet Republics,” as opposed to “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
Comment by Ryan W. Mead — January 26, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Note that the publication displays the American flag as subordinate to the UN flag. The soldier is depicted as a UN soldier that happens to also be a member of the US army. With the sudden death of Stalin, the invasion of the Soviet Union was deemed unnecessary.
Few people realize that NATO is the European military wing of the UN. What will happen when the European Union expands to include former Soviet territory such as the Ukraine and Moldova (Baltic nations nothwithstanding)? Will Russia also eventually join NATO and be de facto occupied by UN troops that happen to be Russian soldiers?
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — January 26, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
[...] via Strange Maps [...]
Pingback by A Map of Russia’s Defeat and Occupation, 1952-1960 « It’s about …. — January 26, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
& to think the DR STRANGELOVE was on TMC Friday night. Nothing like nostalgia from pumping out the bomb shelter…(snarf) and looking at your Ground Observer Corps silhouette manual.
Comment by boscodagama — January 26, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
#25: NATO is not “the European military wing of the UN” NATO and the UN are independent organizations (though all the members of NATO are also in the UN). Russia sees NATO as a threat, so it is unlikely to join up. However, Russia is part of the UN already, so your nightmare scenario has come true!
Comment by Alurin — January 26, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
OK, since this seems to be a pedantry competition, looks to me like the Crimea is occupied. At that time the Crimea was not part of the Ukraine – it was given away by Kruschev in the mid fifties I believe.
So, not just the Ukraine being occupied in the South.
Comment by marisbo — January 26, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
I remember coming across this in bound volumes of Collier’s at the University of Maryland Library when attending there in the mid-70s. Great stuff, especially the slice of life writing by Murrow and others.
Comment by Michael Rebain — January 26, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
This just goes to show those imperial American pig-dogs are dedicated to wiping out the Proud, Triumphant Soviet Union!!!
Comment by Vlad — January 26, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
You’re funny Vlad!
Do you have a particular fondness for canned herring?
Comment by marisbo — January 26, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
The war would only have taken a year or two! Occupations of foreign territory don’t count.
…this is pretty insane.
Comment by neurotype — January 27, 2009 @ 2:57 am
I suspect the artist simply copied the background map. The word “occupied” might then refer to the status of the countries under the USSR. Arguing against this are the Crimea and Ukraine – but I’m not really sure how the US viewed Ukraine in the early 1950s. (I have the same problem with the US position on Tibet nowadays.)
Comment by Ken — January 27, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
In this war Finland would regain territories lost in WW2, and Caucasus region had important geostrategical position too
Comment by ngy — January 27, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Interesting point: Ukraine and a couple of other constituent Soviet Republics were given separate UN resolution to make Stalin feel he had a few votes under his control.
Comment by marisbo — January 27, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
[...] 356 – The World War That Never Happened: US Occupies USSR In its edition of 27 October 1951, the US magazine Collier’s devoted a special 130-page issue to a theme titled [...] [...]
Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — January 28, 2009 @ 12:11 am
War is an awful subject and while we, Americans, love our country, sometimes our government is not as honorable as they portray. Citizens need to look and do their own independent research and in some way be activist to insure that goodness might prevail in our world.
HIM Yao Sui,
head of state of China in exile.
http://himyaosui.wordpress.com
Comment by himyaosui — January 28, 2009 @ 2:35 am
This would lead to an uprising in Yugoslavia and to its invasion by (Kremlin-loyal) Warsaw Pact armies.
Well, they called that one pretty well, except it took until 1968 and happened in Czechoslovakia. But as a prophecy, it’s more accurate than most.
As for Bourgeoises’ claim, I think the idea that NATO is an arm of the UN would make the NATO powers laugh (and the UN, but for different reasons).
After all, neither China or Russia get to veto NATO actions… which is exactly what they could do if it was a UN entity – and they’d never stand for a military entity being created that they, as Permanent Security Council Members, couldn’t veto.
Comment by Sigivald — January 29, 2009 @ 12:30 am
(Also, I think people are reading far too much into the background, especially this strange assumption that Collier’s cover artists somehow reflect the views of The United States Government.
That might have been a valid assumption for the cover of Pravda, but the US Government has never had anything like that level of control and influence over magazines like Collier’s.
Comment by Sigivald — January 29, 2009 @ 12:33 am
HoratioGates
Comment by Nathan — January 29, 2009 @ 1:09 am
doh! Darn back button… Konrad… I’m not sure I buy that the Soviet Union would have won a war with the U.S. in the fifties. Western Europe would have functioned as an effective foothold for U.S. forces, allowing for punishing air attacks on Soviet factories. Demographically and economically, I don’t think the Soviets had recovered enough from WWII. In the early fifties, I don’t think the pool of available fighting age men would have held up. Anything beyond a proxy war might have escalated to a nuclear battle anyway.
Comment by Nathan — January 29, 2009 @ 1:15 am
“This would lead to an uprising in Yugoslavia and to its invasion by (Kremlin-loyal) Warsaw Pact armies.
Well, they called that one pretty well, except it took until 1968 and happened in Czechoslovakia. But as a prophecy, it’s more accurate than most.”
Actually… It happened in Hungary in 1956. :)
Comment by David — January 29, 2009 @ 7:48 am
The Moscow Peace Treaty with Finland likely meant that Finland would be dragged into the war (unwillingly) on the Soviet side. Soviet soldiers and naval ships were stationed in Hanko/Hangö/Gangut, Finland until 1956.
As for the selectiveness for liberation of USSR republics, the Baltic States and Ukraine were much more prominent in the American mentality than any others. Lithuania and Ukraine were especially so due to the interest of U.S. Catholic groups and large immigrant communities. This was not a scholarly publication, instead influenced by popular notions.
Comment by Harijs — January 29, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Harijs –
Thanks for the reminder.
While on the subject of the Cold War, let’s not forget that despite the deep enmity, the four powers occupation went quite well in Austria just off the map.
Not many people are aware that central Vienna, featured in the Third Man was adminstered as a genunine international zone. Moreover Kruschev allowed the country to be reunited and the eastern zone to escape the Soviet orbit on the basis of Austria maintaining strict neutrality.
Comment by marisbo — January 30, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Marisbo, all in all Austria got off extraordinarily lightly during the second world war and after it. This is not that it did not suffer – I have seen numerous village-square memorials to the soldiers who died in that war, and heard harrowing stories of treatment of women by Russian occupiers. However, the damage suffered was nothing compared to the genocide and mass destruction that many other European countries had to endure. Yet many Austrians seem to consider themselves to have suffered particularly greatly. In particular, various Austrians I’ve talked to considered the amount of damage to Vienna during WWII as particularly significant. When I checked the numbers, however, I found only something 20% damage to the city. While, I repeat, this must have been horrendous for those who lived through it, it simply does not compare to the nearly total destruction of cities such as Leningrad, Stalingrad, Warsaw or Berlin – cities that had been turned into battlefields or bombed continuously for many months or both.
Comment by Konrad Talmont-Kaminski — January 30, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
[...] The World War That Never Happened: US Occupies USSR 1951 Colliers magazine imagines what would happen of the balloon went up. [...]
Pingback by Murdoc Online » Friday Linkzookery - 30 Jan 2009 — January 30, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Have any of you read the summary provided by Celsius1414 in comment #4? Just reading it is enough to show that it is not only the quality of the map that is poor…..
kaz_taj is right, this was a poor quality publication.
Comment by Chris — January 31, 2009 @ 6:42 am
Why does NATO operate under the UN flag?
@Nathan (post #42)
Why should anyone be afraid of Russia. The Communists have turned it into a third world country. In the 21st century, economic warfare is the best way to ruin another country.
@ Konrad Talmont-Kaminski (post #46)
Austria, like the former Czechoslovakia, was strategically insignificant.
Just for fun, look at how the Russians rebuilt their cities!
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — January 31, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Konrad –
Very lightly when you consider that Hitler was an Austrian and about 25% of the SS came from Austria. The Austrians were much more enthusiastic anti-semites than Germans, who were for the most part more ambivalent about it. Of course Hitler learnt his ideological anti-semitism in Austria and in Austria to be German was to be in a minority forever threatened by encroachments from other ethnic groups.
Yes, Austria got off very lightly really, in comparison with say the East Prussians.
Comment by marisbo — January 31, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Marisbo, that point can definitely also be made. I simply wanted to abstract away from it to the relatively straight-forward issue of how the Austrians perceive how much they suffered. To give one extreme example, Otto von Hapsburg, the son of the last Austrian Emperor, said at a meeting held on the anniversary of the Anschluss that that no state in Europe had “a greater right than Austria to call itself a victim” of the Nazis. Breath-taking.
As for Nathan’s point back in 42, I think it is important to realise that the USSR was very much like the US in that it came of out WWII much, much stronger. The linked to summary shows the content of the magazine to have been quite laughable – just the sort of fantasy-making that US Sovietologists were wont to engage in throughout the whole of the cold war (partly due to their ignorance, partly due to American hubris and partly due back-wash from the Pentagon’s efforts to misinform the US public about the real strategic position). The bit I found the most ludicrous is the idea that Russians would rise up against their government during the war. Time and again, nothing has united the Russians more effectively than real or perceived external threats – something that all Russian leaders have known and made extensive use of. It is really no coincidence that the Russians are now starting to worship Stalin again as the Great Leader who ‘protected’ them during the war.
As a whole, the magazine seems fit to put into the same alternative history category as ‘What would have happened if Atlantis hadn’t disappeared beneath the waves?’
Comment by Konrad Talmont-Kaminski — February 1, 2009 @ 1:46 am
@ Konrad (post #51)
I find it odd that the Russians long for Russia to once again become a Stalinist state. In order for the ordinary Russian to enjoy a much higher standard of living, the oligarchs would have to give up a lot of power and wealth. Good luck!
I too, believe Russia emerged much stronger after WW 2. However, it no longer controls half of Europe (Poland, Rumania, Hungary, etc.). Do Russian troops wish to return to these countries? How does it plan on rebuilding the old Soviet Union?
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — February 1, 2009 @ 5:15 am
I don’t think that there is any particular desire among Russians to return to Stalin’s version of the USSR.
But it would not be surprising if Russians looked with a certain nostaliga upon Gorbachev’s time in office. After all, Russia was richer during Gorby than during the 1990s – by a quite considerable margin. The introduction of an American-style political economy (as interpreted by frothing-at-the-mouth far-right lunatics like the Cato Inst.), combined with Boris Yeltsin (think Bush the Lesser, with a somewhat higher blood alcohol level), virtually destroyed the country: Only after the turn of the century has Russian GDP recovered to Soviet levels.
When you add to this the fact that the fruits of Russian prosperity, such as it is, are distributed even more unevenly than during Soviet times (and that wasn’t a pretty sight at all – about the same relative income and wealth distributions as the US…), it is hard to conclude that the median Russian is economically better off than during Gorbachev.
Russia now has a more or less functioning democracy, which is of course valuable in a hard to quantify way. The police state has been scaled back, although not abolished, which is also of very concrete but hard to quantify value. But in purely economic terms, the median Russian (nevermind the bottom of the income distribution) suffered greatly from liberalisation and the market fundamentalism nostrums that were peddled to them immediately after the dissolution of the USSR.
In terms of foreign policy, I don’t think that Russia has designs on Poland, the Baltic rim or the Balkans. These are firmly in the EU sphere of interest. However, Russia does have a legitimate strategic interest in not having strategic weapons and NATO forces directly on its border, and Ukraine, Belarus and North Caucasus remains firmly in the Russian sphere of influence. Americans (and their fifth column in various European capitals) would do well to remember that. American meddling in the Caucasus already provoked one utterly unnecessary war between Russia and an American client state. It would be a great crime to throw more lives away in such imperial chess games.
Promoting a geopolitical shift towards genuine, multilateral cooperation, as opposed to bilateral sovereign-client relationships would be desirable. But Russia is not currently the greatest obstacle to that objective…
- Jake
Comment by JakeS — February 9, 2009 @ 11:23 am
@JakeS (post #53)
“But Russia is not currently the greatest obstacle to that objective…”
Well, then who is???
Gorby wanted a “united European Union” that would also include the former Soviet Union. Is this also something that Putin wants?
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — February 13, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
[...] Maps digs up interesting and oddball maps and sometimes more. For example, there’s this map that was the cover of a 1951 issue of Collier’s that was devoted entirely to a hypothetical [...]
Pingback by Strange Maps - Brian.Carnell.Com — February 16, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
thank you very much
Comment by پیامک عید نوروز — February 20, 2009 @ 9:15 am
[...] I found this old Collier’s magazine cover at Stange Maps: [...]
Pingback by Matthew Yglesias » Department of Counterfactuals — March 6, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Its a good thing that this war never happened.
Comment by pinnaclesecurity — March 12, 2009 @ 9:11 am
[...] According to Strange Maps, Collier’s introduces the issue thus: [...]
Pingback by US Occupation of the USSR 1952-1960 « The Parallax Brief — March 13, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
World War 3 will happen no doubt russia will be involved but they will side with China. Infact WW3 has already started prelude events leading up to WW3 including 9-11, then the US invasion of Iraq. A palenstinian state will be established so that israelis will be fully separate frm palestinians( listen for a 7 year treaty to b confirmed by a world leader). shortly there after israel will attack palestine. then there will hair raising nuclear threats on mindkinds existence, China Invades taiwan North Korea will attack South Korea. The panic caused my the public over TERRERISTS attack will cause the people of the world to demand a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT aka one world order. but not long after this will collapse as the truth behind any plan will become clear. there will be a war there will be significant reduction of population in this world via man-made and natural disasters. No-one can tell how it will end but i tell you this we can change the course of actions by governments of this world for 60 years they have worked towards a ONE WORLD ORDER you see it in many movies it is real it is happening DONT BELIEVE ME THINK IM TALKING CRAP that fine WATCH 2 movies please Google the word Zeitgeist click onto the link and watch Zeitgeist The Movie then Zeitgeist appendum take what you want from it believe what you want but the truth is there just look outside and past the square you will find the truth
BLUENINJA888
Comment by Craig — August 3, 2009 @ 9:12 am
pow meu q materia ridicula
por que nao colocaram que a uniao sovietica ocuparia os EUA???
Comment by gustavo — November 5, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Blueninja888:
Looks like you have already begun your own little war against grammar, punctuation and spelling. ;)
Comment by Whirlwind — November 18, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
I saw this magazine at a rummage sale some years back. Now I regret not buying it, but at the time the story just looked a bit silly. Nice illustrations, though.
Comment by Kuken — December 3, 2009 @ 3:10 pm