WI: All of Europe Soviet after WWII

Surprisingly I wasn't able to find many threads about this. If there is, I apologise; just let this one fall to the bottom of the page and die.

Lately I've become interested in the idea of a WWII that results in the Soviet Union occupying all of Europe. By this I mean all of the Axis states and puppets in OTL, possibly including even Portugal and Spain. The threads I have found seem to talk about how the Soviets could police such an area, but I want to expand on that.

It's cliche, but the best way I see this happening is that the UK sues for peace after France falls. Insert typical Churchill dead, Halifax PM etc etc here. The "peace" results in Hitler's gains in Europe being acknowledged, as well as the new Axis-aligned governments in Western Europe. Peace is forced upon Mussolini, who instead directs his expansionist dreams towards Southern Europe.

Without the UK in the war, tensions are less high with the US. In addition more forces are available for Operation Barbarossa. Conversely, Stalin should be more prepared than in OTL -- he knew that they the M-R Pact was just buying time. So the Eastern Front goes better initially for the Germans, perhaps even taking Moscow, but petering out soon afterwards. It's not enough to beat the Soviets and they stay fighting.

Pearl Harbour begins the Pacific War between Japan and the US/UK/China. America can marshal much more resources than it could IOTL against Japan (the figure I always see is that only 15% of the US's industrial capacity was focused on defeating Japan), so the war here is faster: the invasion of Kyushu occurs in April 1945, rather than October as planned. The invasion is bloody in the extreme, and the Americans become desperate to end the war before invading Honshu, sure to be even worse. The atomic bombs seal Japan's fate, and the war ends much as IOTL. On the upside, no Soviet involvement means that China likely remains under the nominally Republican government of Chiang Kai-Shek.

In Europe the Soviets begin to strike back against Hitler in 1942. His attempt to capture the Caucasus fails, and his refusal to abandon an inch of ground leads to a meat grinder in Moscow. Think Stalingrad, but worse. What happens here depends on Lend-Lease and German production I think. If some form of Lend-Lease can take place the Soviets will be in a better position, but for it to happen would probably mean restarting the war with Britain, likely with the Americans in too. As well German factories will be better off with no bombing campaign, and more troops will be freed too. Can the Soviets still beat the Germans?

For this to work, of course they have to. The war lasts longer and is far more bloodier, but by the end of 1945 the Red Army is on the Oder River with the assault on Berlin due to start the next year. With Japan defeated, now's the chance for the US/UK to declare war on Germany. But both nations are war-weary, and for the Americans they have less reason to start a fight. However, Stalin occupying Europe is little better than Hitler.

This is where my thought process ended and I couldn't go any further. Would Britain and the US declare war on Germany, despite war-weariness? What form would this take -- bombing raids, a full-scale invasion? Is a Soviet Europe still possible?

I think all of Europe going Communist is a very hard thing to pull off. I think that the Communist Bloc easily could have been a lot bigger. Imagining Turkey, Greece, and Italy falling isn't too hard. France would be an even harder one to manage, but given the right circumstances it might. Finland could have been steamrolled by the Soviets if they really wanted to, they're too close to them for the West to really do anything.

The thing is, none of those fell because the United States actively made sure it didn't happen. I don't think America would be any less concerned about having Europe become Communist, so I imagine intervention would happen at some point.

I can see most of continental Europe becoming community if the US does not get involved in World War II period. The Russians will be 1946 defeat the Third Reich. They will also have invade Italy after, liberate countries occuppied by the Germans such as France, the Netherlands, Greece, etc. The Soviets will want to eliminate Franco too in Spain.

I can see some nations like Portugal, Switizerland, and others not being controlled by the Red Army simply for the fact they were neutral in the war.

M. Adolphe Thiers said:

I think all of Europe going Communist is a very hard thing to pull off. I think that the Communist Bloc easily could have been a lot bigger. Imagining Turkey, Greece, and Italy falling isn't too hard.

Click to expand...

Turkey was neutral IOTL until 1945 when it joined the Allies. I don't think there's enough of a reason here for them to join the Axis, although I suppose Hitler could have "persuaded" Ankara to allow German troops through to secure the oil in the Caucasus.

Italy falling to the Communists I can see. IOTL the Italian Communist Party was the largest Italian party after WWII. If the country doesn't directly get occupied by the Red Army it might join later on. I guess it's possible that the Allies could have an occupation zone in the south (including Sardinia and Sicily) and a Soviet one in the North, much as in Germany.

M. Adolphe Thiers said:

France would be an even harder one to manage, but given the right circumstances it might.

Click to expand...

Again, the Communists were strong in France after the war, and the French public perceived the Soviet Union as playing the biggest part in defeating Germany. Similarly to Italy above, it might not fall directly to the Soviets, but could join later.

M. Adolphe Thiers said:

Finland could have been steamrolled by the Soviets if they really wanted to, they're too close to them for the West to really do anything.

Click to expand...

They didn't IOTL, so I don't see any real reason for Stalin to do so ITTL. Finland probably ends up as it did in our world - a Western-aligned neutral.

M. Adolphe Thiers said:

The thing is, none of those fell because the United States actively made sure it didn't happen. I don't think America would be any less concerned about having Europe become Communist, so I imagine intervention would happen at some point.

Click to expand...

True. The most likely scenario, as I see it, is the UK/US declaring war in early 1946 and beginning a massive bombing campaign against Germany, with the aid of nuclear weapons. This, combined with the Red Army offensive across the Oder into Germany proper, would end the war. Token landings in Southern Italy, Northern France and the Low Countries by the Wallies would follow, and the war ending around mid-late 1946.

What's the result? Well, I guess the Wallies will demand occupation zones in Germany and (maybe) Italy; France and the Low Countries become independent again. The division of Germany will favour the Soviets enormously. UK/US troops likely never even entered the country. Berlin would be under three-power occupation, Saarland annexed to France (as IOTL), and I suppose an American zone in the Rhineland and a British one in modern Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein.

The Cold War inevitably begins; France votes in a Communist government and becomes a Soviet-aligned state, similar to China before the Sino-Soviet Split. Possibly its colonies immediately seek independence. The Western occupation zones in Germany are isolated and impossible to defend, so they inevitably join with the Soviet zone to create a new German state. It might be neutral and disarmed, as Stalin tried to do IOTL instead of having it divided between East and West, although here the USSR is probably powerful enough for "free" elections to vote in the SED.

So we have a Europe which is almost completely controlled by the Red Army, except for Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and maybe Denmark and Norway. Would these states join a NATO-esque organisation when there is almost no chance of them being able to defend themselves if it comes to war?

redlightning said:

I can see most of continental Europe becoming community if the US does not get involved in World War II period. The Russians will be 1946 defeat the Third Reich. They will also have invade Italy after, liberate countries occuppied by the Germans such as France, the Netherlands, Greece, etc. The Soviets will want to eliminate Franco too in Spain.

Click to expand...

Franco might be too far for them to go. Spain and Portugal probably fall in with the UK/US as they did IOTL, unless a Korea/Vietnam-esque situation develops there at some point.

redlightning said:

I can see some nations like Portugal, Switizerland, and others not being controlled by the Red Army simply for the fact they were neutral in the war.

Click to expand...

Right. I didn't think Switzerland or Sweden would be Communist ITTL either.

The problem I have with a red Europe is... how do the Soviets keep it? Even in OTL they faced uprisings in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Can the Russians keep them all down?

Faeelin said:

The problem I have with a red Europe is... how do the Soviets keep it? Even in OTL they faced uprisings in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Can the Russians keep them all down?

Click to expand...

I don't see why they can't. Short of direct Western intervention the Red Army is powerful enough to put down any internal threat in the Warsaw Pact* states.

Something else to think about, although it relates to the rest of the world and not Europe. The Soviet Union doesn't enter the war against Japan. That means no invasion of Manchuria, no Korean War, and -- probably -- no Red China. (Stalin probably gets Southern Sakhalin aka Karafuto and the northern Kuriles back after Japan's defeat.) This also means no Vietnam War. Imagine the possibilities of American investments going to South East Asia and China instead of Western Europe in the post-war world.

Proxy wars between the USA and USSR take place elsewhere than IOTL: the Middle East, Africa, and maybe (as I suggested) Spain and Portugal.

Here is a whacky alternative;

Summer 1944: the Germans successfully assassinate Hitler, and in exchange for no Soviet invasion of Germany, German military forces disengage entirely from the eastern front and slam back into france. If Germany, now fighting a one front war, can drive the allies back into the sea, Stalin gains basically all of Europe after the war. Germany is still a gutted wreck, as is much of Europe as a whole, but Stalin negotiates a peace whereby Germany surrenders and becomes another (nominally free) SSR, but does not suffer an invasion on top of the inevitable occupation. In this situation, all of Germany in occupied by the USSR directly, and Stalin is seen as a 'man of peace'.

Woukd that work for you?

Allies launch operations unthinkable

Soviet Union can't rule whole Europe. It would be too difficult for them. Even puppesitasion would be difficult. United Kingdom and United States never would accept that. And in continental Europe would be endless uprisings against Soviets. They might get more land but not whole Europe.

Medicus said:

Turkey was neutral IOTL until 1945 when it joined the Allies. I don't think there's enough of a reason here for them to join the Axis, although I suppose Hitler could have "persuaded" Ankara to allow German troops through to secure the oil in the Caucasus.
.

Click to expand...

Turkey's status in the war isn't going to matter. The Soviets will want access through the Turkish Straits as they did OTL. The Soviets also still had territorial claims through the Armenian SSR in the East of Turkey.

The Kemalists aren't friends of the USSR, but in this scenario what's to stop the KGB from organizing a coup with the TKP? Then Soviet troops can come in to "help" the government, all while guaranteeing their navy will never be locked out in the Black Sea. The Soviet's also tested Iran as well, who they invaded in WWII to end their neutrality to guarantee a supply corridor.

Shadow Master said:

Here is a whacky alternative;

Summer 1944: the Germans successfully assassinate Hitler, and in exchange for no Soviet invasion of Germany, German military forces disengage entirely from the eastern front and slam back into france. If Germany, now fighting a one front war, can drive the allies back into the sea, Stalin gains basically all of Europe after the war. Germany is still a gutted wreck, as is much of Europe as a whole, but Stalin negotiates a peace whereby Germany surrenders and becomes another (nominally free) SSR, but does not suffer an invasion on top of the inevitable occupation. In this situation, all of Germany in occupied by the USSR directly, and Stalin is seen as a 'man of peace'.

Woukd that work for you?

Click to expand...

The problem with this idea is that Stalin isn't going to make peace in summer 1944. The Big Three had committed to unconditional surrender earlier that year at Yalta. In any case, what could the conspirators realistically offer Stalin?

Lalli said:

Soviet Union can't rule whole Europe. It would be too difficult for them. Even puppesitasion would be difficult. United Kingdom and United States never would accept that. And in continental Europe would be endless uprisings against Soviets. They might get more land but not whole Europe.

Click to expand...

I keep seeing this opinion expressed, but I haven't seen any compelling reason for it other than "just because." I think the Red Army was more than capable of occupying most, if not all, of Europe, based on the experience in the East. Resistance won't start up straight away, and by the time it does, the Soviets will be prepared.

The UK/US won't want the USSR controlling Europe, but at the end of World War II their peoples just aren't going to accept another war. Ditto with Operation Unthinkable as suggested above.

M. Adolphe Thiers said:

Turkey's status in the war isn't going to matter. The Soviets will want access through the Turkish Straits as they did OTL. The Soviets also still had territorial claims through the Armenian SSR in the East of Turkey.

The Kemalists aren't friends of the USSR, but in this scenario what's to stop the KGB from organizing a coup with the TKP? Then Soviet troops can come in to "help" the government, all while guaranteeing their navy will never be locked out in the Black Sea. The Soviet's also tested Iran as well, who they invaded in WWII to end their neutrality to guarantee a supply corridor.

Click to expand...

But they didn't invade Turkey IOTL. There would need to be some provocation for them to do it. Hitler deciding to invade the Caucasus through Turkey would be sufficient.

I assumed Iran would inevitably fall into the Soviet sphere.

Quick and dirty map of the World in 1946 at the end of World War II:

Medicus said:

But they didn't invade Turkey IOTL. There would need to be some provocation for them to do it. Hitler deciding to invade the Caucasus through Turkey would be sufficient.
:

Click to expand...

That's because the Truman Doctrine made it explicit that the United States would aid Turkey, as well as Greece and Iran. If the United States isn't going to protect Turkey, and there's no NATO to shield them, then the Soviet Union can do what they want with them.

It wouldn't be hard for them to manufacture a coup like they did in Czechoslovakia with the TKP. Even then, they could always fall back on the Armenia claim and that they are "liberating" occupied Armenian territory from the Turks. Considering having control over the Bosporus and the Dardanelles has been a Russian strategic objective for centuries, there's no way they won't take the chance. If there's no pretext, then they will make one.

Medicus said:

I don't see why they can't. Short of direct Western intervention the Red Army is powerful enough to put down any internal threat in the Warsaw Pact* states.

Click to expand...

And what makes you think there won't be "direct Western intervention"? The US and UK would not tolerate Germany controlling all of Europe (not even all of Europe west of the USSR) but they will acquiesce in a USSR extending to the English Channel? And don't forget that the US now has the atomic bomb, which the USSR won't have until 1949... (Also, the US and UK won't have a war with Japan to distract them as they did in 1941-45.)

Shadow Master said:

Here is a whacky alternative;

Summer 1944: the Germans successfully assassinate Hitler, and in exchange for no Soviet invasion of Germany, German military forces disengage entirely from the eastern front and slam back into france. If Germany, now fighting a one front war, can drive the allies back into the sea, Stalin gains basically all of Europe after the war. Germany is still a gutted wreck, as is much of Europe as a whole, but Stalin negotiates a peace whereby Germany surrenders and becomes another (nominally free) SSR, but does not suffer an invasion on top of the inevitable occupation. In this situation, all of Germany in occupied by the USSR directly, and Stalin is seen as a 'man of peace'.

Woukd that work for you?

Click to expand...

No because the idea of the german officers that planed to get rid of Hitler was precisely the opposite : making peace with the western powers to turn back all their war effort against the USSR.