A Blunted Sickle - Thread II
- Thread starter pdf27
- Start date
Well, Stalin worked hard about that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Chechens_and_Ingush
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Balkars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Kalmyks
Lithuanians and Estonians can be still send away so to promote russification, but maybe the lack of war will mean that they will take more time or be less rabid, same for Germans, italians (yes there were a little italian community in Crimea till WWII), finns and romanian as they represent ethnicities belonging to enemies, plus i expect the same type of population exchange between Poland and URSS of OTL.
German expulsion can be different ITTL due to a shorter and more limited war and much of the quagmire in Jugoslavia had not happened.
Given that the bulk of Soviet war deaths fell on Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Russians, it'll probably be the non-East Slavic minorities which make up a smaller percentage then IOTL...
Slovakia do not even share border with USSR while Hungary does - Ruthenia.
However let assume Soviets in middle of most cruel winter Europe ever seen will attack towards Carpathians passes. Well it would be interesting.
Russians tried in 1914/15 and OTL Dukla pass battle took 2 months in October 1944. After they broke through there was another mountain pass and another and another. All together Soviets were fighting in Slovak mountains from September 1944 to April 1945.
In same period they crossed Vistula, Oder and surrounded Berlin.
I very much doubt it. It will more likely be a great partner for technical expertise, and to some extent training. Depending on how USSR acts these alliances might very well merge.
Eric S. Raymond
Banned
Huh? As I look at a map I see a shared border with the Ukraine that the SU fronted on in 1940.
The Swedish-Finnish Union would feel as uncomfortable with a Anglo-French alliance around it as Sweden and Finland have felt about NATO IOTL. In other words, not really uncomfortable at all, at least in comparison to what they would think about the USSR. Likely the Union would also covertly cooperate with the Western alliance in many ways, and the USSR would try to drive a wedge between the Union and the Western alliance through various measures. Like I have commented earlier, it would be in the Soviet interest to try to meddle in the Union internal politics to boost pro-Soviet or anti-Western views, through supporting far left parties and trying to create disagreements between the Swedes and the Finns whenever possible. Foreign political pressure against the Union would then be married with this effort. Remember, though, that if the Soviets are smart, they would also want to court the Union in different ways to avoid it drifting west. Expect the USSR to try to offer all kinds of trade deals to the Union to make it lucrative to work with the Soviets. There are many Union industries that could do good business in the USSR, like there were Finnish industries IOTL. And of course the USSR could offer the Union trade goods in return, especially oil, natural gas, and other raw materials.
I guess you are looking at wrong map. Ruthenia was fully occupied by Hungary in March 1939. So again, Slovakia didn’t had common border with USSR. Hungary on other side did.
And this has actually come up in the thread fairly recently since when Hungary declared war on the 3R, they were able to not only invade pre-war Austria, but German controlled Poland as well. However the border between Hungary and Poland is small and with horrible transportation links.
For the Entente, Hungary's DOW is useful in the short term, but the question is how much do they get post war. The Author hasn't indicated if there were promises given
No he didn’t. I believe he implied there may be some negotiations. Hungarians will definitely want to keep at least territories with Hungarian majority.
Question is what to do with bigger part of Ruthenia. They proclaimed independence I believe on March 15th 1939. But nobody recognized them and were quickly occupied by Hungarians.
As an independent country they would be very small with population around 600 K.
Theoretically if Czechoslovakia got Federalized they could be 3rd republic of Czechoslovakia. If plebiscite was held, definitely they wouldn’t want to stay as part of Hungarian kingdom. If they would want to be part of Czechoslovakia is question too.
However at one point app 1/3 of soldiers in Czechoslovak army in USSR were Ruthenians!
I was looking over the list of aircraft carriers in the Far East theater and it appears that the Japanese may have a significant superiority in aircraft available. Although Japan has 6 fleet aircraft carriers to the UK's 5 aircraft carriers, the Japanese superiority in aircraft available is larger due to the British operational doctrine of relying on a passive defense for their armored Illustrious-class carriers, which resulted in not keeping a permanent deck park. This changed in 1944 in the OTL, when the RN started to follow the lessons learned from the USN practice of a permanent deck park, but probably wouldn't have occurred by this time in TTL. Here is aircraft complements of the British and Japanese aircraft carriers. I've also included the 1944 complement for the British for reference.
British Far East Fleet: 204 total aircraft (288 with deck park)
British Far East Fleet: 204 total aircraft (288 with deck park)
- Ark Royal: 60 aircraft
- Illustrious: 36 aircraft (57 with deck park)
- Formidable: 36 aircraft (57 with deck park)
- Victorious: 36 aircraft (57 with deck park)
- Indomitable: 36 aircraft (57 with deck park)
- Akagi: 66 aircraft
- Kaga: 72 aircraft
- Soryu: 63 aircraft
- Hiryu: 64 aircraft
- Shokaku: 72 aircraft
- Zuikaku: 72 aircraft
Two comments here. I'm not saying that the Japanese don't have an advantage, but it is limited by two factors.
1) I believe that the French Aircraft Bearn is in the Far East as well, I'm not sure it is at Singapore, but the Japanese certainly have to take it in account when trying to attack Singapore.
2) The Japanese have two possible routes to the DEI, if they go through the South China Sea, then I believe that the UK and France can use land based aircraft as well, and if they try to go the long way around the PI to the East, then they have other issues.
And at this point, the Japanese have about two weeks(?) until the Navies of the Entente are more or less useless in the Atlantic (+North Sea, +Med) and everything else can be sent. (I'm not saying that the British would be *comfortable* leaving the US Navy as the largest navy in the Atlantic and the Italian Navy as the largest Navy in the Med, but worse sacrifices have been made)
Yep, the RN is outnumbered, but they have a luxury; they don't have to fight and hold ground. They can retreat if need be and their rear is covered under a dense land based fighter force with a comprehensive radar direction network guiding it. Furthermore, the RN/MN will be operating under friendly MPA cover so they should have a very good idea when/where the Japanese are and can elect to offer battle in conditions most advantageous to the RN/MN (moonless night Swordfish strikes?)
I think the RN would be fine with the USN being locally dominant in the Atlantic. Main Fleet East plans were always predicated on moving almost everything except the grossly obsolete ships through Suez to Singapore. This was a concession to a reality that the USN would be temporarily/locally dominant in the Atlantic and it was a decision made when the RN was not planning on fighting a three power war, so it was not a decision made out of desperation. It was a deliberate choice.
Same applies to the Italians in the Mediterranean. And realistically, a combination of R class battleships and the older French battlewagons would be a clean deterrant to the Italians esp. if Malta and Tunisia were heavily reinforced with torpedo bombers.
To repeat a question I think I asked before...
While the United States is likely to stay neutral if not attacked in any Entente-Japanese war, my question is how Friendly will the USA be to the Entente? For example, if the US sees the entire IJN coming into the South China Sea just outside Philippine waters, will the alert be shared with the RN in Singapore?
And as another question, which is more likely, that an Entente Pilot will mistake a US ship for IJN or that an IJN pilot will mistake an US ship for British/French. (Seems like the US could keep the Far East at peace just having USN destroyers running around the South China sea.
)I agree totally, I was just looking into the correlation of forces in theater that the Japanese may consider in developing a potential war strategy. On paper at least, this advantage may give Tokyo the confidence they need to launch a pre-emptive attack against the Entente.
Btw, if I were planning the attack for the Japanese, I wouldn't attack Singapore directly. Instead, I would the attack against the French in Indochina to overwhelm that force first. This would eliminate the threat of leaving enemy bases across my LOCs. At the same time, this hopefully would lure the British fleet away from its main base and land-based air support at Singapore and set up a decisive carrier vs. carrier battle in the South China Sea, where the Japanese superiority in carrier-based aircraft could then come to bear. Yes, it's desperation play, but the only alternative that I can see would be to negotiate a withdrawal from China.
Driftless
Donor
I think there's a number of avenues to consider as to US activity in the Pacific
- Does(or has) the USN still moved the strength of the Pacific from California to Hawaii? That move was done historically, unfortunately creating the possibility of the Pearl Harbor attack.
- Would the US still follow the core tenets of War Plan Orange under the circumstances that appear to be shaping up. As I understand the plan, the premise was US v Japan in a one on one fight, so the plan was developed as a slow methodical progression across the Pacific, taking or bypassing islands as appropriate. The Philippines were considered near indefensible for any length of time. FWIW, MacArthur pooched the execution of his portion of the plan.
- Is MacArthur still the big Kahuna? I would assume so.
- Is Admiral Hart still in charge of the US Asiatic Fleet as he was historically? I believe he got on quite well with his British counterparts, so that could have an impact on events. He had much of the Pacific submarine force(including a variety of types and weapons)
- If the US isolationist sentiment is stronger, then FDR may have the USN on a shorter leash than historically too.
I just checked on what pdf had last written about the Bearn.
9th September 1941
The aircraft carrier Bearn arrives at Esquimalt for an extended refit expected to take 18 months. She is to have her boilers replaced, the reciprocating engines driving the outer shafts replaced with new steam turbines, and her gun armament replaced with 15 twin 40mm Bofors mounts of the Dutch Hazemayer type. The deletion of the anti-surface ship armament is controversial, but accepted by the MN since it frees up sufficient topweight for an air search radar to be fitted.
The aircraft carrier Bearn arrives at Esquimalt for an extended refit expected to take 18 months. She is to have her boilers replaced, the reciprocating engines driving the outer shafts replaced with new steam turbines, and her gun armament replaced with 15 twin 40mm Bofors mounts of the Dutch Hazemayer type. The deletion of the anti-surface ship armament is controversial, but accepted by the MN since it frees up sufficient topweight for an air search radar to be fitted.
The would make her unavailable until March 1943. In the OTL, the Joffre was not scheduled to be placed in service until 1943, but pdf has implied in the forum that she likely was scrapped on the slipways. This leaves France without any operational aircraft carriers. I wonder if the British would be willing to lease one of their aircraft carriers to the French until a replacement can be procured, or at least let the French deploy some of their Aeronavale squadrons on their carriers.