Happy and Glorious.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by stevep

Devolved

Well Beria proved very much a paper tiger. However I think Stalin is probably dreaming if he thinks he will escape without at least serious reducations in his powers. No way will the allies agree to him keeping western Germany or Poland and their likely to want to remove Soviet influence from the 'Soviet' zone of Germany and parts of the Balkans and Romania as well.

If he agrees to that, remembering Lenin's example, he might survive as the allies might wish to avoid either heavy fighting and/or the instability of the mess the Soviet empire will be and having to clear up/control it. However is he willing and able to go that far? Also even if he manages to come to some agreement with the allies what sort of state is the Soviet [dis]Union going to be in?

Steve

Beria thought he had more power than he really had. His troops are deserting and have no desire to die for him.

Stalin is making the best out of a bad situation and is hoping that the Allies will seize on any opportunity to continue with the war.

We will have to wait to see if he's right.

[Roisterer]

Originally Posted by Devolved

Stalin ... saw the logic in what Molotov said. He was not a Hitler and he had a coldness and clarity of vision that the Nazi leader had lacked. He was aware of the collapse in morale in many parts of the country and he knew better than to rant and rave about treason and cowardice even though he wanted to.

He immediately understood that his armies would be unlikely to gain much more than they already had. He was also told that even Korea was becoming a closed door. Perhaps now really was a good time to call the war a draw and end it. He would then tell the world that only the Atom Bomb had saved the corrupt West from defeat. He was also confident that he would have his own bomb in about 2 to 3 years. All he had to do was survive the next few weeks.

It takes two to tango (to the peace table) so I doubt this is going to get a good response from the allies. I can't see them going for a status quo ante which just allows the Russians to build up for a second round, but with their own nukes.

I'm sure they'll wait to see how the internal Russian unrest plays out, and maybe add a few more bombs into the mix...

Regards

R

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by Devolved

Beria thought he had more power than he really had. His troops are deserting and have no desire to die for him.

Stalin is making the best out of a bad situation and is hoping that the Allies will seize on any opportunity to continue with the war.

We will have to wait to see if he's right.

I am amazed he miscalculated that much. Did not see it coming. However, Stalin was the top dog in USSR until death for a reason.

The sentence in the middle I do not really get? What do you mean that Allies would want to continue war? I tend to think they'd want to wrap it up as soon as possible. It is not like the USSR will pose threat to Europe for a long time.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by Shaby

I am amazed he miscalculated that much. Did not see it coming. However, Stalin was the top dog in USSR until death for a reason.

The sentence in the middle I do not really get? What do you mean that Allies would want to continue war? I tend to think they'd want to wrap it up as soon as possible. It is not like the USSR will pose threat to Europe for a long time.

Sorry the sentence should have had 'not' in it.

In the case of Beria OTL he had an exaggerated idea of his own power and he ended up being executed.

ITTL he he fell into the same trap. He failed to realize that Stalin was not just feared by many but loved by many too. Beria was feared by many but loved by no one.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by stevep

Devolved

Well Beria proved very much a paper tiger. However I think Stalin is probably dreaming if he thinks he will escape without at least serious reducations in his powers. No way will the allies agree to him keeping western Germany or Poland and their likely to want to remove Soviet influence from the 'Soviet' zone of Germany and parts of the Balkans and Romania as well.

If he agrees to that, remembering Lenin's example, he might survive as the allies might wish to avoid either heavy fighting and/or the instability of the mess the Soviet empire will be and having to clear up/control it. However is he willing and able to go that far? Also even if he manages to come to some agreement with the allies what sort of state is the Soviet [dis]Union going to be in?

Steve

The Third Reich invaded the rump state of Czechoslovakia in complete disregard of the just signed Munich Accords. They later invaded the USSR despite their mutual Non-Agression Treaty. Imperial Japan did Nazi Germany one better on top of that by attacking the US while in the midst of high level peace negotiations. The Soviet Union outdid them all by launching a world-wide offensive everywhere they could reach against their own Allies! If no one could trust a treaty signed by the Nazis, if no one could trust the good faith of any negotiation offered by the Imperial Japanese, no one will trust Stalin, OR ANY RUSSIAN LEADER, not to betray any agreement they make the moment it suits them to do so. PERIOD. Negotiations with the USSR will have to be about Russian surrender and Allied occupation zones in the newly deconstructed former USSR, now Russian Republic (in whatever form it might be). Any red flags seen flying will be treated as an act of resistance.

The lesson of WWII is that dictatorships MUST be utterly broken first. Otherwise, its a WWI ending, with the enemy simply resting up for Round 2. And this time, with both sides having nukes. The threat of a nuclear Russia should be more than enough to maintain the willingness to fight WWIII. Better that, than a two-way nuclear WWIV. It doesn't take the mind of a George S. Patton to realize that elementary political and military reality.

Beria's actions may be encouraging to some, Zhukov's even more so, but I don't see it stopping Allied air attacks. Least of all atomic strikes. Not while the Soviets are hunkering down, rather than withdrawing from areas they have invaded.

And ITTL, February 3rd has not officially ended yet. Which means the three day an atomic strike pattern is still on schedule. After all, if all Stalin has to do to stop Atom Bomb strikes is show off a little political instability (always followed by the next Heavy Purges)...

[kellineil]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

The Third Reich invaded the rump state of Czechoslovakia in complete disregard of the just signed Munich Accords. They later invaded the USSR despite their mutual Non-Agression Treaty. Imperial Japan did Nazi Germany one better on top of that by attacking the US while in the midst of high level peace negotiations. The Soviet Union outdid them all by launching a world-wide offensive everywhere they could reach against their own Allies! If no one could trust a treaty signed by the Nazis, if no one could trust the good faith of any negotiation offered by the Imperial Japanese, no one will trust Stalin, OR ANY RUSSIAN LEADER, not to betray any agreement they make the moment it suits them to do so. PERIOD. Negotiations with the USSR will have to be about Russian surrender and Allied occupation zones in the newly deconstructed former USSR, now Russian Republic (in whatever form it might be). Any red flags seen flying will be treated as an act of resistance.

The lesson of WWII is that dictatorships MUST be utterly broken first. Otherwise, its a WWI ending, with the enemy simply resting up for Round 2. And this time, with both sides having nukes. The threat of a nuclear Russia should be more than enough to maintain the willingness to fight WWIII. Better that, than a two-way nuclear WWIV. It doesn't take the mind of a George S. Patton to realize that elementary political and military reality.

Beria's actions may be encouraging to some, Zhukov's even more so, but I don't see it stopping Allied air attacks. Least of all atomic strikes. Not while the Soviets are hunkering down, rather than withdrawing from areas they have invaded.

And ITTL, February 3rd has not officially ended yet. Which means the three day an atomic strike pattern is still on schedule. After all, if all Stalin has to do to stop Atom Bomb strikes is show off a little political instability (always followed by the next Heavy Purges)...

All true, but the USSR is so large that it will be incredibly difficult to occupy it in the way Germany was, I suspect any occupation will be limited to the main zones of habitation and the rest will be left to it's own devices

[abc123]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

The Third Reich invaded the rump state of Czechoslovakia in complete disregard of the just signed Munich Accords. They later invaded the USSR despite their mutual Non-Agression Treaty. Imperial Japan did Nazi Germany one better on top of that by attacking the US while in the midst of high level peace negotiations. The Soviet Union outdid them all by launching a world-wide offensive everywhere they could reach against their own Allies! If no one could trust a treaty signed by the Nazis, if no one could trust the good faith of any negotiation offered by the Imperial Japanese, no one will trust Stalin, OR ANY RUSSIAN LEADER, not to betray any agreement they make the moment it suits them to do so. PERIOD. Negotiations with the USSR will have to be about Russian surrender and Allied occupation zones in the newly deconstructed former USSR, now Russian Republic (in whatever form it might be). Any red flags seen flying will be treated as an act of resistance.

The lesson of WWII is that dictatorships MUST be utterly broken first. Otherwise, its a WWI ending, with the enemy simply resting up for Round 2. And this time, with both sides having nukes. The threat of a nuclear Russia should be more than enough to maintain the willingness to fight WWIII. Better that, than a two-way nuclear WWIV. It doesn't take the mind of a George S. Patton to realize that elementary political and military reality.

Beria's actions may be encouraging to some, Zhukov's even more so, but I don't see it stopping Allied air attacks. Least of all atomic strikes. Not while the Soviets are hunkering down, rather than withdrawing from areas they have invaded.

And ITTL, February 3rd has not officially ended yet. Which means the three day an atomic strike pattern is still on schedule. After all, if all Stalin has to do to stop Atom Bomb strikes is show off a little political instability (always followed by the next Heavy Purges)...

AMEN to that.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by abc123

ANEN to that.

A mis-spelling of AMEN, or yet another internet acronym I've never heard of?

[usertron2020]

If the USAF has become more cautious after losing one of their silverplate B-29s, Maikop & Grozny would both present relatively easy targets for them to strike. They could be hit and the B-29s withdraw before the Soviets could even react.

BTW, would the 1947 population of Murmansk make it a worthy target? Or not? If so it would basically knock the Red Navy out of the war completely. Or would it be seen as too close to Finland?

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

If the USAF has become more cautious after losing one of their silverplate B-29s, Maikop & Grozny would both present relatively easy targets for them to strike. They could be hit and the B-29s withdraw before the Soviets could even react.

BTW, would the 1947 population of Murmansk make it a worthy target? Or not? If so it would basically knock the Red Navy out of the war completely. Or would it be seen as too close to Finland?

If I remember correctly, you'd want to hit Polyarnyy rather than Murmansk as that was the base of the Northern fleet and it's a fair distance (30km or so) from Murmansk.

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by iainbhx

If I remember correctly, you'd want to hit Polyarnyy rather than Murmansk as that was the base of the Northern fleet and it's a fair distance (30km or so) from Murmansk.

But closer to Finland. Was Polyarnyy developed into a base by this time?

[abc123]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

A mis-spelling of AMEN, or yet another internet acronym I've never heard of?

Yes, it's a acronim for "stupid mistake caused by lack of time"

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by Shaby

But closer to Finland. Was Polyarnyy developed into a base by this time?

Northern Fleet was based at Murmansk to start with, but the vessels were at Polyarnyy and then all moved to Severomorsk.

Considering the size of the Northern Fleet and it's threat level I wouldn't think it's a serious target - it's not as if Lend-Lease is flowing in through there.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by iainbhx

Northern Fleet was based at Murmansk to start with, but the vessels were at Polyarnyy and then all moved to Severomorsk.

Considering the size of the Northern Fleet and it's threat level I wouldn't think it's a serious target - it's not as if Lend-Lease is flowing in through there.

Agreed. The Royal Navy plan ITTL was to send a task force to mount a few strong raids but the fleet turned back when severe winter conditions struck.

[Devolved]

Happy and Glorious

continued


February 4th 1947

Iran

British led Indian troops clashed with Soviet units a few kilometers south of Mashad. The fighting was brief and the Soviets withdrew to the town after losing 28 killed and 11 captured. The Indians lost 10 killed and 16 wounded.

In the west of the country the Kurds continued their rebellion and ambushed another Iranian milita patrol and wiped them out. By this time approximately 40% of Iranian Kurdistan was outside Tehran's control.

Iraq

A small crowd of Iraqis gathered outside RAF Habbaniyah to protest at the use of Iraqi soil as a base for the use of atom bombs. There was no trouble and after a few anti British speeches the crowd dispersed. The British authorities were a little embarrassed that some Iraqis seemed to be aware of what was supposed to be a secret although the take off and landings of B29s could scarcely have avoided attention from locals.

Palestine

A bomb attack in Jersusalem by Zionists killed 2 British officers and 4 civilians.

There were also a series of arrests of some Jewish activists on suspicion of having ties with the Soviet Union.

India

Ghandi condemned the use of atom bombs in a speech in Delhi and said that the Western World had shown it was morally bankrupt and no better than the Nazis. The speech prompted calls for him to be arrested but Viceroy Wavell was content to simply criticize Ghandi for being out of touch with global realities.

TBC

[Devolved]

Happy and Glorious

continued


February 4th 1947


Netherlands

An attempt by the Russians to press home their advantage in the southern Netherlands and force a crossing of the Waal failed as supplies failed to arrive in sufficient quantities. The result was that the artillery barrage was limited by the small supply of shells while the Anglo-Dutch forces had no such problem. The 25 pounder field guns rained heavy fire down on the advancing Russians who were unable to respond effectively. Despite the low numbers of infantry the Allies held the attack and the Russians fell back in disarray.

Germany

The Russian bridgehead acroos the Rhine at Cologne was hit hard by Anglo-American airpower while RAF Meteors and American Mustangs kept the sky clear of Sturmoviks. Neither side had the strength for a knockout blow so both sides dug in to the frozen ground.

France

Eisenhower made no secret of his disatisfaction with the lack of reinforcements arriving from across the Atlantic. He knew that there were many logisitical problems and that it was difficult to get the men back into uniform and back into fighting shape. On the other hand he felt that there was a lack of urgency and he had just 8 US divisions of variable quality under his command on the Franco German border while those troops that did arrive were just enough to replace casualties.

After once again highlighting his difficulties in a phone call to Marshall in Washington he was told that he had already been sent 2 extra divisions since the war started and would have to make do with the forces he had until early March. He was then told to expect another 2 fully equipped divisions by March 15th and after that it 'may' be possible to send 1 division per fortnight plus replacements for losses.

Eisenhower then expressed concern that the Soviets could breakthrough before they arrived but Marshall didn't agree and attempted to assuage his fears with the reports he'd received of logistcal problems and mass desertions among the Soviet forces in Germany. Eisenhower had heard these reports too but he felt that his own troops weren't in too good a shape either and could crack under the pressure of one more determined push by the Soviets. The conversation ended with neither Eisenhower or Marshall in a good mood. The mood was not brightened when Montgomery then called to say that Bevin told him not to expect any British reinforcements until the weather improved. Virtually every spare man was needed to simply keep Britain from grinding to a halt.


TBC

[stubear1012]

I have read several articles over time that due to manpower shortages in the combat units in WWII, the US Army allowed blacks to serve next to whites in combat. I have read that the outstanding performance of the black troops in combat was a factor in the decision to desegrate the US military after WWII. I am wondering if the condition of the US Army in this timeline will lead to more blacks serving with whites in front line units?

"While a handful of Blacks were commissioned as officers in World War I, white officers remained the rule in that conflict. The NAACP lobbied the government to commission more black officers. During WWII, most officers were white and most black troops still served only as truck drivers and as stevedores.[3] The Red Ball Express was operated almost exclusively by African-American truck drivers and was instrumental in facilitating the rapid advance of Allied forces across France shortly after D-Day. In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units—all of which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow African-American soldiers to pick up a gun and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time.[4] This was the first step toward a desegregated United States military. Eisenhower's decision in this case was strongly opposed by his own army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith. Indeed, it was stated that Bedell Smith was outraged by the decision and had said that the American public would take offense at the integration of the military units.[5]"


Thank you

Stubear1012

[The Oncoming Storm]

Just reading that last update and you get the feeling that it would have been absolute hell for all the infantry in this War having to fight through such a harsh winter. The amount of casualties from frostbite must be significant.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by The Oncoming Storm

Just reading that last update and you get the feeling that it would have been absolute hell for all the infantry in this War having to fight through such a harsh winter. The amount of casualties from frostbite must be significant.

You're right. Frostbite casualties will be very high and many troops will be more concerned with staying warm than fighting.

It was the Soviet plan to use the winter to gain advantage over the Allied troops but even they didn't expect a European Winter to be this bitter. The weather has significantly reduced the intensity of the fighting in Northern Germany and Holland and has pretty much saved Denmark from being overrun.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by stubear1012

I have read several articles over time that due to manpower shortages in the combat units in WWII, the US Army allowed blacks to serve next to whites in combat. I have read that the outstanding performance of the black troops in combat was a factor in the decision to desegrate the US military after WWII. I am wondering if the condition of the US Army in this timeline will lead to more blacks serving with whites in front line units?

"While a handful of Blacks were commissioned as officers in World War I, white officers remained the rule in that conflict. The NAACP lobbied the government to commission more black officers. During WWII, most officers were white and most black troops still served only as truck drivers and as stevedores.[3] The Red Ball Express was operated almost exclusively by African-American truck drivers and was instrumental in facilitating the rapid advance of Allied forces across France shortly after D-Day. In the midst of the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was severely short of replacement troops for existing military units—all of which were totally white in composition. Consequently, he made the decision to allow African-American soldiers to pick up a gun and join the white military units to fight in combat for the first time.[4] This was the first step toward a desegregated United States military. Eisenhower's decision in this case was strongly opposed by his own army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Walter Bedell Smith. Indeed, it was stated that Bedell Smith was outraged by the decision and had said that the American public would take offense at the integration of the military units.[5]"


Thank you

Stubear1012

My guess is that Black soldiers and white soldiers were fighting side by side as they withdrew from Germany and that few would have objected to it. I am also guessing that with infantry being in short supply Eisenhower would issue orders regarding the use of Black troops and that objections would be muted.

The rest depends on how long the war lasts. The longer it goes on the more likely it is that desegregation would gather momentum.