What would the world look like after an anti Communist world war with or without a Nazi Germany?
Alternate Postwar World
- Thread starter The Federalist
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
It's certainly hard to imagine that they might occupy all of Russia. Maybe they only declare independence of the non-Russian soviet republics and leave a rump Soviet Union, waiting until it collapses.
I have to reask the question;
In a world where the Nazis don't come to power in Germany and instead they have some sort of alternate right wing government, what kind of Cold War or political atmosphere would the world be in after an Allies vs Comintern World War 2 which would end with a defeated Soviet Union and with Communism no longer a major force in world politics?
In a world where the Nazis don't come to power in Germany and instead they have some sort of alternate right wing government, what kind of Cold War or political atmosphere would the world be in after an Allies vs Comintern World War 2 which would end with a defeated Soviet Union and with Communism no longer a major force in world politics?
Max Sinister
Banned
OK, I'll do. I think if there are no nazis and the Communists are defeated, we'd see an "end of history". (For a few years, at least.)
Alcuin
Banned
The only time I've seen this done in fiction was Bradley Denton's Wrack 'n' Roll in which General Patton took charge after Roosevelt's death 1945 and pushed on to Moscow. Both the Republican and Democratic parties collapsed (to be replaced by the "Dealers" and the "Whigs"). The result was a cold war between the Americans and the "Lemon-Limeys" (China and the British Empire) with Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union shared between the three as the "Trust Territories".
There was a third force in Denton's World, (both worldwide and in American, British and to a lesser extent Chinese namely the Wrackers, who took their legitimacy from a Private Eddy Dixon, whose "Marching to Moscow" became their anthem.
There was a third force in Denton's World, (both worldwide and in American, British and to a lesser extent Chinese namely the Wrackers, who took their legitimacy from a Private Eddy Dixon, whose "Marching to Moscow" became their anthem.
We seem to be assuming that an anti-communist WW2 leads to the Russians losing. That isn't the only possible result.
IMO the USSR, lead by General Winter, was uninvadable by any combination of (1940's) armies. A state that can absorb 20 million casualties without collapsing can probably absorb as many as it takes to win.
As far as Patton's idea of carrying on the war with is concerned, IMO a US/British/Empire assault on the Red Army in 1945 would have resulted in only one thing - total military disaster and a communist Europe.
IMO the USSR, lead by General Winter, was uninvadable by any combination of (1940's) armies. A state that can absorb 20 million casualties without collapsing can probably absorb as many as it takes to win. As far as Patton's idea of carrying on the war with is concerned, IMO a US/British/Empire assault on the Red Army in 1945 would have resulted in only one thing - total military disaster and a communist Europe.
Max Sinister
Banned
@Alcuin: Strange story.
@Shimbo: The Soviet Union was pretty bled dry, and don't forget that they received lots of Lend-Lease material - food, boots, weapons, trucks and so on.
@Shimbo: The Soviet Union was pretty bled dry, and don't forget that they received lots of Lend-Lease material - food, boots, weapons, trucks and so on.
If Hitler had replaced by some more traditional German figure(Rommel?) who was interested in geopolitics instead of bizarre racial theories, the USSR would have gone down in 1942 as dozens of Ukrainian and Baltic divisions entered service with the Wehrmacht.
Indeed, Hitler may have been the only leader of the century who could actually convince the Ukrainians that Stalin was the better bargain.
Indeed, Hitler may have been the only leader of the century who could actually convince the Ukrainians that Stalin was the better bargain.
By 1945 they already have the lend-lease material. They wouldn't have given it back if the US/UK/etc attacked them.
I stand by my theory that the 1945 Red Army would have been more than a match for the 1945 US/UK/etc armies. I am open to persuasion though
I'd like to see figures for numbers of divisions, aircraft, tanks, men etc. on each side. I suspect they would strongly favour the Red Army.
By 1945 they already have the lend-lease material. They wouldn't have given it back if the US/UK/etc attacked them.
No, but they wouldn't be getting any more, and even if the USSR could muster a big number of men, how do they feed and supply all of those? Both sides leveled everything they could between Leningrad and Germany, and that's the heart of the USSR, where better than half its food is grown. No lend-lease would likely mean starvation, and if they can't feed or equip their soldiers forget about trying to repeal the allies. Patton and McArthur both wanted to destroy communism after WWII - and in all seriousness, that was the time to do it.
I stand by my theory that the 1945 Red Army would have been more than a match for the 1945 US/UK/etc armies. I am open to persuasion though
I do not have the numbers, but as you stated more than 20 million soviets died in WWII against the Nazis, and the Soviets got beaten badly at first with 2.5 million Nazis. Between the US and the British empire, they could probably muster double that to fight the Russians, and American/British/Empire factories could crank out many more tanks, guns, bombs, aircraft and munitions than the USSR could. Wouldn't be a cakewalk, but it wouldn't be winable for the Russians.
Alcuin
Banned
I've been looking around and have come across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
This was the 1945 British Chiefs of staff's assesment of the chances of the US/UK/etc beating the Red Army. it states that the Red Army had 2:1 preponderance in armour and 4:1 in infantary and that even if the remains of the Wermacht were included in the etc, war with the USSR was unwinnable.
Shimbo, the plan is obviously unworthy of consideration. A rearmed Germany could easily field several million soldiers, rather than a laughable 100K, not to mention many nations liberated from Hitler with men of their own.
What did France have in 1940? 800K regulars and 5.5 million reservists? One tenth of that equals almost thirty divisions. Then there would be Italian and Japanese troops to rearm...
US production of armaments was far superior to Russia in every category, with the US producing 45% of all armaments in WWII, nearly equal to every other nation put together on both sides.
Now, the question is this: Instead of comparing production in OTL, exactly how are we getting this grand coalition together in the first place? It took years of effort and Japan's lunacy at Pearl Harbor to finally drag the US into a war, do we imagine Stalin attacking Pearl Harbor?
What did France have in 1940? 800K regulars and 5.5 million reservists? One tenth of that equals almost thirty divisions. Then there would be Italian and Japanese troops to rearm...
US production of armaments was far superior to Russia in every category, with the US producing 45% of all armaments in WWII, nearly equal to every other nation put together on both sides.
Now, the question is this: Instead of comparing production in OTL, exactly how are we getting this grand coalition together in the first place? It took years of effort and Japan's lunacy at Pearl Harbor to finally drag the US into a war, do we imagine Stalin attacking Pearl Harbor?
How would the anti-communist alliance (which the west had been since the Revolution in 1917) become a war waging coalition in the 1930s? The wave of revulsion after WWI was so strong that I think it would prevent any preemptive moves by the west against the USSR. Once the US recognised the Soviet Union in 1933, the tensions between the west and the Soviets eased considerably. If anything the cold war between the west and the USSR was easing particularly since Stalin expelled Trotsky and then announced the Revolution in One Country stand.
Another government in Berlin would not mean anything. It was GERMANY, no matter who was in charge, that the French were worried about and why they looked to an alliance with Stalin as well as the UK. The Germans would eventually reintroduce conscription, rearm and reoccupy the Rhineland. Most of the pre-Nazi democratic parties had these in their platforms. Indeed, Germany first began to rearm and to secretly train in the USSR under the Weimar republic. France first began to court Soviet assurances before Hitler came to power.
Indeed, the trade between the USSR and Nazi Germany was so profitable that the German Ministry of Finance could not believe Hitler would jeapodise it by invading the Soviet Union. A rational German government would simply keep the favourable balance of trade deal going and war would be seen a stupid move.
As for Patton's plan, it was just an ultra conservative wet dream. Assuming the troops would just blindly follow their leaders to war against the USSR who were until yesterday their allies, the propaganda that the west had been using since the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union about the undefeatable Red Army and the couragous long suffering Russian peasant, would back fire badly. No doubt about it the Red Army would win.
The Atomic bomb would not be a war winning weapon against the Soviets. Stalin knew there were only two devices. The Soviet Union was not Japan and the Red Airforce would have air superiority over the territory of the motherland. A lone bomber flying some 1500 kms undetected from the western allies territory to Moscow is impossible. A whole flight of bobmbers with only one carrying the bomb would be destroyed before theplanes got anywhere near thetarget.
Another government in Berlin would not mean anything. It was GERMANY, no matter who was in charge, that the French were worried about and why they looked to an alliance with Stalin as well as the UK. The Germans would eventually reintroduce conscription, rearm and reoccupy the Rhineland. Most of the pre-Nazi democratic parties had these in their platforms. Indeed, Germany first began to rearm and to secretly train in the USSR under the Weimar republic. France first began to court Soviet assurances before Hitler came to power.
Indeed, the trade between the USSR and Nazi Germany was so profitable that the German Ministry of Finance could not believe Hitler would jeapodise it by invading the Soviet Union. A rational German government would simply keep the favourable balance of trade deal going and war would be seen a stupid move.
As for Patton's plan, it was just an ultra conservative wet dream. Assuming the troops would just blindly follow their leaders to war against the USSR who were until yesterday their allies, the propaganda that the west had been using since the Nazi attack against the Soviet Union about the undefeatable Red Army and the couragous long suffering Russian peasant, would back fire badly. No doubt about it the Red Army would win.
The Atomic bomb would not be a war winning weapon against the Soviets. Stalin knew there were only two devices. The Soviet Union was not Japan and the Red Airforce would have air superiority over the territory of the motherland. A lone bomber flying some 1500 kms undetected from the western allies territory to Moscow is impossible. A whole flight of bobmbers with only one carrying the bomb would be destroyed before theplanes got anywhere near thetarget.