Hitler Emigrates. Communist revolution in Europe

I'm sure you've read the IRON DREAM. Supposed to have been written by an emigree Adolf Hitler who left Europe for US. Also there was a continent wide Revolution by the Communists. Do you REALLY think this would happen because one man goes? Not in Germany-the Army and Conservatives put the Reds down. Rosa Luxemborg and Karl Liebknecht(?) were murdered. In France the Right was present. DO NOT think there would be a revolution EVERYWHERE. Where is the question. Suggestions?

With a resurgent USSR, yes. Britain and France would be just as reluctant (if not more) to fight the Soviets as they were to fight Hitler; with Eastern Europe in Soviet hands, a combined Red Army assault and internal revolutions could see Germany and France fall to the Reds (perhaps at the same time as the Spanish Revolution? Thus we'd have Spain, France, and Germany all burn in red fire, crippling Britain's attempts to engage in the Continent?

Knight Of Armenia said:

With a resurgent USSR, yes. Britain and France would be just as reluctant (if not more) to fight the Soviets as they were to fight Hitler; with Eastern Europe in Soviet hands, a combined Red Army assault and internal revolutions could see Germany and France fall to the Reds (perhaps at the same time as the Spanish Revolution? Thus we'd have Spain, France, and Germany all burn in red fire, crippling Britain's attempts to engage in the Continent?

Click to expand...

Besides the whole "didn't want a war" thing, the British and French were reluctant to fight Germany because it was seen as a barrier to communism, and were afraid a war would just spread communist revolution, remembering what happened after WWI. If Stalin invades any countries in eastern Europe, communism is spreading anyway, and might as well fight. Expect an alliance of France, the UK, and whoever is in charge of Germany to stop any further advances. (Plus Musso, depending on what side of the bed he got out of in the morning).

Also, note Hitler's annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland were considered sort of legitimate on the basis of national self-determination. Any Soviet claims on the Baltic states or Polish lands are unlikely to be given anything like the same respect.

A Soviet invasion of europe as early as the Spanish Civil war is unlikely. If Stalin was willing to wreck the effectiveness of the Red Army through purges in a TL where threatened by Hitler, he'll probably do it in a no-Hitler TL. Plus, soviet military buildup can only go so fast.

Not that there isn't a real risk of a Soviet invasion of Europe in a no-Hitler TL: the Soviet armed forces will only get bigger with time, and Stalin's ambitions may well overcome his caution at some point. However, this is probably going to be for all the marbles - both Germany and France need to be knocked out of the fight - so it is unlikely to happen until Stalin manages to get a truly massive military lead on the west, which will depend on such factors as when the Western powers begin to get scared enough to start a big build-up of their own. (Fear that the western powers may be moving to close the gap may also provoke a Soviet invasion.)

In any event, I don't picture such a scenario as likely before the late 40's, and personally feel that if Stalin was likely to try expanding in any direction, it was against the Japanese: much less likely to bring in all of Europe on their side. And of course there's always nuclear weapons projects....

Note on the possibility of third-column activity: In a Soviet-all Europe war where Stalin was clearly the agressor, I doubt this would have accounted for more than moderate sabotage and resistance to conscription: nationalism generally trumps class politics. (Note the totaly ineffectuality of Socialist internationalism in stopping WWI, or the feebleness of the Communists in trying to keep France out of the war after the Stalin-Hitler pact).

B_Munro said:

Also, note Hitler's annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland were considered sort of legitimate on the basis of national self-determination. Any Soviet claims on the Baltic states or Polish lands are unlikely to be given anything like the same respect.

Click to expand...

I thought the Baltic states and part of the Polish state were carved from the old Romanov era Russian Empire... I don't know, but is that a good enough excuse?

It is an important fact that there have been losts of Communist uprisings in Germany after WW1, which were then all crushed by the Reichswehr and/or by volunteer brigades. It should also be considered that the Coomunist Party (KPD) was one of the strongest forces in parliament at the end of the Weimar Republic. Therefore, I perfectly think a Communist revolution attempt might have been made in Germany, especially when France also had a left-wing government.

However, without outside support (from Stalin), very probably the revolution would have led to a very bloody civil war, ending with defeat for the revolutionaries unless Stalin had opted to make an outright invasion. And in such case, the big question is what Italy and the UK would have done.

Nevertheless, I think that in a no-Hitler scenario, the most probable result is a convervative right wing government in Germany, headed by people such as Hugenberg, von Schleicher or even Ludendorff.

My personal view is that, with Hitler gone, the Kaiser would almost certainly have returned (Hindenburg's last decree was that the Kaiser return, but Hitler lied to the public). But I'm saying that a Communist take-over COULD have happened.

I must disagree. Sure, the communits TRIED to rise up in Germany, but the mroetehy did, the elss support they received in the population. German population, already weary of the democratic system, often outright feared communism, something which made Hitlers rise to power slightly easier (though other factors contributed to a larger degree). Those communist up-risings in Germany scared the Germans of communism, and thus it is unlikely that any could suceed after, say, 1923...

knightyknight said:

I thought the Baltic states and part of the Polish state were carved from the old Romanov era Russian Empire... I don't know, but is that a good enough excuse?

Click to expand...

Well, the Balts are not Russians, so the ethnic self-determination thing works against reunion here: for the Soviets to claim otherwise would be like the Austrians claiming that they should still rule over the Czechs because they used to be part of Austria-Hungary.

The claims on parts of Poland would be a bit more legitimate (both Ukranians and Belorussians make up part of the Soviet population as well as eastern Poland in the 30's) but the Union was ruled from Moscow, not Kiev, Great Russians dominated, and simply being a Communist dictatorship automatically made people less willing to accept any territorial claims, ethnically legitimate or not....

Probably the only time there was any chance of a Communist revolution in Germany was after WWI, when Hitler was too minor a player to make any difference. By the 30's, the sharpness of the Communist-Socialist split alone made any sort of working-class revolt exceedingly improbable. (At least not without further divergences aside from the no-Hitler one. A more intelligent Communist movement which manages to keep some sort of all-left coalition going, combined with a right-wing dictator even loonier (in the sense of screws up even worse) than Hitler?)

Earlier I suggested in a war of "Europe vs the Soviet Union" communist behind-the-lines revolt would be a minor factor at best. Upon reconsideration, I think I may have gone too far: judging from the energetic support of the Allies by communist and left-wing groups during the invasion of Italy, it seems possible in case of a Soviet invasion of Fascist Italy, they might find some real local support. OTOH, this was, I believe, after Germany invaded to keep Italy in the war: they might have been rather less active in fighting a "legitimate" Italian fascist government rather than a German puppet. Anyone better informed on this period have some idea?

The reason the Communists in Italy supported the Allies so fervently was that

1) Mussolini oppressed Italian leftists

2) The Allies were on the same side as the USSR

Remember, when the Nazi-Soviet pact held, Communists in France sabotaged the Allied war effort and in the US, Paul Robeson called FDR a war-monger and opposed US military preparations. AFTER the USSR was attacked, we have an 180 degree turn.

I think that Communist shenanigans in a "Europe versus USSR" war will be more than just a minor factor, though I don't see governments being overthrown and countries switching sides as a result. After all, the Poles rabidly opposed the Soviet invasion in 1920, class issues notwithstanding.

In the story, German revolution happens in the 1930s (1930 according to wikipedia).
KPD at least partially takes the IOTL place of NSDAP.

Scenario for 1936: A popular front of socialists and communists takes power, right-wing forces attempts a military coup with results similar to the Kapp putsch, except this time it is the communists and not republicans who takes power.
Communists holds most industrial regions and soviet-union gives the most help, right-wingers are crushed or flee in exile.
France have a leftwing governement and Poland would face red army attack if attempting to invade Germany.
Austria/Italia/Hungarya/Poland/Romania forms some sort of military alliance.
Some anti-communist partisans remains in Germany but that only afford reinforce security apparatus, modeled on the NKVD.

Scenario for 1937-1949: Leftwing governement in France brokes down, instead there is a rightwing coalition taking power.
Germanic and CCCP assistance results in republicans winning the spanish civil war, Franco forms a governement-in-exile in Italia.
France & Britain pledge support to anti-communist coalition and start increasing dramatically their military production.
Against this encirclement, there is an even greater Madrid/Berlin/Moscow cooperation.
5-6 years after the German revolution, governement demand return of Austria to Germany, coalition refuses and war starts. Eastern coalition is far bigger than IOTL czecoslovakia, hence France & Britain cannot back down.
Within a few weeks Austria is integrated into Germany, within a few months Poland is crushed by the combined offensives of the red armies.
Within a year, anti-communist coalition is completely crushed despite French & British expedition forces.
Spain have invaded Portugal and is itself facing invasion form the French but the French are not that reluctant to attack and face much guerilla war and partisan warfare.
France is attacked throught Belgium (& perhapse Holland as well), battle is much more brutal as blitzkrieg have not quiet emerged as in OTL, France doesn´t surrender as easely as much of their forces where in Spain when attack occured.
Those forces fortify themself in southern France, using mountainous geography, for long time enought to evacuate to North Africa.
Communist forces are unchallenged in continental europe, a massive build-upp to the invasion of britain begins, britain itself is initially struck by bombing raids.
Later it becomes a battle for air superiority, with lesser ressources the RAF is finally defeated.
Submarines production kicks in, which causes tensions with the USA but not outright war yet.
Britain is defeated in India, Middle-east then North Africa before invasion of british isles themself is launched as Berlin-Moscow fears that the US will intervene and keep the war going.
There is a hard battle, with red armies struggling to get out of their beach heads.
British forces retreates to Scotland, then Irland.
Japan have been expanding its hold over Indochina and China, for years Japan have cooperated militarily with France & Britain, then with the USA. By the time invasion of britain starts, the USA starts secretely shipping US military forces to China and works on the atomic bombe is well on its way.


Question remain, would Berlin-Moscow alliance last? Or would europe be divided into two communist blocks?

PS: Found this thread while searching for "Iron Dream" topics.

Reds are the new Nazis...

Any attempt by Stalin to seize Europe would fail regardless of the wanks you guys with Red hardons have. His purges decimated the Red Army's leadership. He had enemies on all sides (Japan to the east, Europe to the west). The population was far from on his side, otherwise many Soviet citizens wouldn't have accepted the Germans with such open arms. And as for the communist uprisings in Germany, they only further encouraged a right wing response. I guarantee you either a military dictatorship/junta or the return of the Kaiser was far more likely to occur.

My opinion, should Stalin dare to attack Europe, his offensive sputters just like it did against Finland until talented officers begin to re-emerge (should Stalin dare to keep going) and this assault draws western attention leading to western mobilization. Should Stalin somehow grind his way to Germany's borders, don't be surprised to see FDR and the United States drawn in. Also, with increasing attention put on Europe a possible drain on Far East reserves to push the offensive in the west forward could bring an unwanted Japanese strike on the Mongolian front a la Nomonhan. Finally, everyone speaks of a massive Soviet Army. All well and good, but the factories have to be manned and no economy can survive on a war footing indefinitely. That is exactly what broke the Soviet economy in the first place.