There is also the famous question by HUAC congressman "Does mr. Euripides preach class warfare?".Would this be a sentiment that develops 1938-40ish ITTL? Bearing in mind there’s no historical basis for assuming the United States of FDR would see the Soviet Union as a “fellow traveller”.
This is the America of the Red Scare, the Lusk Committee, the Hatch Act and Pat Scanlan after all.
Japan is indeed one of the reasons why I see a long-lasting stalemate rather than a limited Soviet victory. There is a better chance than in OTL for the go-North option.
I wouldn't be sure the Germans run out of oil. In the worst case, the Romanians are friendly, and the 1939 German army (and its subsequent evolution in this ATL) needs less oil than in OTL. In the best case, the Romanians are co-belligerents of the German-Polish alliance. OTOH, as mentioned by both me and you, they do run out of rubber, aluminium, manganese etc.
I'm curious about the US alliance with the Soviet Union you suggest, though. Why? Especially if you start with "no Lend-Lease", how does that develop into a military alliance?
FDR was not a fellow traveler (what is this? McCarthy's argument?). FDR was a left-leaning US President, with a Cabinet probably full of "fellow travelers" (although I doubt a McCarthyst fellow traveler was something more than a not blatanty-racist alt-rightist). But Stalin was the Paramunt Leader of the Workers of the Wolrd and still he allied with Hitler. Why? Geopolitics.
IMHO USA and USSR were natural allies in Interbellum World: two young countries, full of idealism, rapidly growing and natural enemy of the Old Colonial Europe.
Both had lots of advantages in the end of colonialism: this made them allies against Churchill at Yalta IOTL.
Both had lots of advantages in reduce european influence in the world: this made them allies against Churchill at Yalta IOTL.
Both had lots of advantages in divide the world between themseves: this made them allies against Churchill at Yalta IOTL.
If Japan was involved, both had lots of advantages in crush it to pieces: this made them allies in the Pacific.
On the contrary, FDR had no advantage in an alliance with Hitler or with UK and France against Stalin: quod prodest?
Of course, a military alliance was a no-starter, but a lend-lease or the like would be possible (and a good excuse for a Third New Deal). Even a simple embargo would do wonders. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, if Japan was involved, an embargo would easily provoke a PH.
Almost everybody but Hitler: in Mein Kampf he said the worst tort of Versailles was Alto Adige (vol. II ch. 13 and the Zwei Buck), while Danzig corridor was a correct choice since it was inhabited by Polish (Santi Corvaja 1982) - I'll provide the quote in a second EDIT: done. I want to highlight that Hitler said so to silence a faction in German alt-right that pushed for Alto Adige even if it would cost Italian alliance. If a catholic austrian leaved South Tyrol for Itlay, he could leave Danzig corridor for Poland.Almost everyone that mattered a damn in the German leadership, be they Nazi or Heer or Civilian, assumed the Polish territory ‘stolen’ from Germany would be ‘returned’.
I just can’t see that attitude producing a lasting alliance with a Poland that saw those same territories as essential to their existence.
How do you square that circle?
Last edited: