So, I read this AAR recently, and got to wondering what the post-war world would look like if the Great Patriotic war had looked like this player's game.
The things that I find particularly interesting:
Berlin is taken on the week of 25 November 1943 - which in the game ends the war (you may argue that the Germans would continue to fight, given most of Germany still isn't occupied and nor is France liberated. But still, it's a much quicker war and Germany is something like 18 months ahead of time. That's going to change all sorts of things in how Europe is settled post-war (for example, is Tito strong enough in late '43 that he can liberate Yugoslavia before the Soviets do it for him?)
It also gives the Soviets alot more time to get involved in the war against Japan. The entry of the Soviets into the Pacific war is often given as one of the big, if not the biggest, reason for the Japanese surrender. Might we see Japan surrender without the a-bomb being used? And if not, how might the struggles for control of Japanese policy go? Might a Soviet entry into the Pacific war in later '43 mean that the Soviets and Americans share occupation zones in Japan itself?
The Soviets lose less men in the AAR-world than they did in the real world - just 2.24 million military deaths verses OTL's 8.7-13.85 million military deaths. That's fairly huge - what effects does an extra 6.5-11.5 million military age men have on the post war Soviet Union?
What sort of civilian death toll do people think the Soviets would have endured in this world? I am guessing that with the Germans being driven back more quickly, that will mean less civilian deaths, but I don't think the civilian death toll would be reduced as much as the military death toll - OTL it was 10-14 million, with 6 million of that total being lost to famine. Less of a need to call up EVERY able bodied man into the red army would mean the famines during the war would be less severe (more men to work the farms) but would they be much less severe? Disruption to transport links will still be severe and there will still be the need to get as many people as possible working in factories to turn out weapons and ammunition. Might we see the civilian death toll halved? More than halved? Less than halved?
Also, in the AAR, the Germans penetrated deeper into North Russia, much less deeply into the Ukraine (they never even reached Crimea in the AAR), never cut Leningrad off (though the battles around Lenningrad were still bad enough that the city would be made hell - just less of a hell than OTL's Lenningrad became). What sort of effects would that have? Would the deeper penetration around the North of the front damage Soviet industry badly? Would the much shallower progress in the South change the food situation by much?
Certainly the Soviets will be much stronger in the post war world.
fasquardon
The things that I find particularly interesting:
Berlin is taken on the week of 25 November 1943 - which in the game ends the war (you may argue that the Germans would continue to fight, given most of Germany still isn't occupied and nor is France liberated. But still, it's a much quicker war and Germany is something like 18 months ahead of time. That's going to change all sorts of things in how Europe is settled post-war (for example, is Tito strong enough in late '43 that he can liberate Yugoslavia before the Soviets do it for him?)
It also gives the Soviets alot more time to get involved in the war against Japan. The entry of the Soviets into the Pacific war is often given as one of the big, if not the biggest, reason for the Japanese surrender. Might we see Japan surrender without the a-bomb being used? And if not, how might the struggles for control of Japanese policy go? Might a Soviet entry into the Pacific war in later '43 mean that the Soviets and Americans share occupation zones in Japan itself?
The Soviets lose less men in the AAR-world than they did in the real world - just 2.24 million military deaths verses OTL's 8.7-13.85 million military deaths. That's fairly huge - what effects does an extra 6.5-11.5 million military age men have on the post war Soviet Union?
What sort of civilian death toll do people think the Soviets would have endured in this world? I am guessing that with the Germans being driven back more quickly, that will mean less civilian deaths, but I don't think the civilian death toll would be reduced as much as the military death toll - OTL it was 10-14 million, with 6 million of that total being lost to famine. Less of a need to call up EVERY able bodied man into the red army would mean the famines during the war would be less severe (more men to work the farms) but would they be much less severe? Disruption to transport links will still be severe and there will still be the need to get as many people as possible working in factories to turn out weapons and ammunition. Might we see the civilian death toll halved? More than halved? Less than halved?
Also, in the AAR, the Germans penetrated deeper into North Russia, much less deeply into the Ukraine (they never even reached Crimea in the AAR), never cut Leningrad off (though the battles around Lenningrad were still bad enough that the city would be made hell - just less of a hell than OTL's Lenningrad became). What sort of effects would that have? Would the deeper penetration around the North of the front damage Soviet industry badly? Would the much shallower progress in the South change the food situation by much?
Certainly the Soviets will be much stronger in the post war world.
fasquardon
