Operation long jump, approved by Hitler was the plan to assassinate the big 3 - Stallin, Roosevelt and Churchill at the Teheran conference in 1943. It was to be carried out by a top Nazi agent! If it had been successful, what would the consequences have been?
Does A Successful Operation Long Jump Turn WW2?
- Thread starter SlickWilly
- Start date
Putting aside what would be required to carry the operation out successfully.............
So we end up with President George Wallace and possibly Anthony Eden as Prime Minister. The Soviet Union is interesting since I can see a power struggle developing between Beria and Molotov, though a triumvirate might form until the end of the war. At most however, depending on how severe the power struggle in Moscow becomes, the Soviet Offensive on the Eastern Front could be moderately disrupted. However, this doesn't really in any way allow for Germany to pull out a win, maybe at most buying them a few precious months with more of Europe falling to the Western Allies.
So we end up with President George Wallace and possibly Anthony Eden as Prime Minister. The Soviet Union is interesting since I can see a power struggle developing between Beria and Molotov, though a triumvirate might form until the end of the war. At most however, depending on how severe the power struggle in Moscow becomes, the Soviet Offensive on the Eastern Front could be moderately disrupted. However, this doesn't really in any way allow for Germany to pull out a win, maybe at most buying them a few precious months with more of Europe falling to the Western Allies.
The USSR is a question mark for me, but the US and UK will keep fighting.
Assuming the USSR stays in the fight as well the war goes pretty much as OTL.
I'd expect the post-war political landscape to be quite different, however.
For the USSR, anyone close to the top will know the best thing is to keep fighting, but can anyone but Stalin exercise the level of control he did in 1943? A factional fight between the various Soviet leaders that greatly damages the war effort seems like a possibility to me.
Assuming the USSR stays in the fight as well the war goes pretty much as OTL.
I'd expect the post-war political landscape to be quite different, however.
For the USSR, anyone close to the top will know the best thing is to keep fighting, but can anyone but Stalin exercise the level of control he did in 1943? A factional fight between the various Soviet leaders that greatly damages the war effort seems like a possibility to me.
Greater resolve to defeat Hitler and destroy Nazi Germany, followed by a more bitter peace once the war is concluded (early summer 1945).
If they all get killed before the conference ends then one of the major differences is going to be what happens with eastern Europe after the fighting. What are President Henry Wallace and Prime Minister Anthony Eden's attitudes to the Soviets going to be? Even if they're still friendly the Soviets not having such a powerful and forceful negotiator in the shape of Stalin could change things. Will the western allies still agree to essentially abandon eastern Europe by acquiescing to the Soviets setting up puppet regeimes?
In a word, no: Germany can't win any kind of victory after Stalingrad; Japan never had a chance of winning. The US, UK, and USSR will all keep fighting, the only question is how much the post-Stalin power struggle will slow down the Red Army. The war might last a few months longer, and the Western Allies might meet the Soviets a bit farther east, but the Cold War probably still happens much as it did in OTL.
Perhaps a brief power struggle between Beria and Molotov occurs and is brought to an end by the intervention of the Red Army under the leadership of a prominent general like Zhukov? Because to be frank the RA would probably be much more interested in fighting the germans than helping to prolong civil discord, and consequently would snuff out both factions the moment domestic disputes began to seriously impair the war effort. And while such a situation could explode, I think that the RA would most likely stay united and if that's the case they would certainly be able to quickly quell the political factions and indimidate them into obedience at least until the war's end.
Anyways can you say General Secretary/Fearless Leader Georgi Zhukov? Cause I sure can
.
EDIT: This could actually be a very good thing for the USSR.
Anyways can you say General Secretary/Fearless Leader Georgi Zhukov? Cause I sure can
.EDIT: This could actually be a very good thing for the USSR.
Churchill had already played his key role in guaranteeing victory. Eden was his man--and so was South African prime minister Jan Smuts; the latter might end up playing a really central role in British war policy (not a bad thing, since his judgement was more balanced than
Churchill's). Stalin's demise would only affect the war in the East if the power struggle resulted in the Communist secret police beginning to slaughter all the competent generals, which I don't see happening--the party hacks were too afraid of the Germans. Henry Wallace potentially could be a disaster but I think the people running the American war effort would surround him and guarantee he did the right thing at least until the war is over. The key decision that he could have screwed up (by sending Marshall rather than Ike to run Overlord) had already been made. The really bad thing is that we don't get Truman as president--the architect of Cold War victory. On the other hand, we might get Ike as president in 1948. With Ike in the White House and Zhukov in the Kremlin, we might see a much less intense Cold War developing--one that will be less expensive for both sides and will end sooner. It was inevitable that the Soviets would occupy much of Eastern Europe and keep Germany divided, but this might be regarded as less threatening in the West without Stalin in charge. Ike might even persuade his war friend to move towards a freer society.
Churchill's). Stalin's demise would only affect the war in the East if the power struggle resulted in the Communist secret police beginning to slaughter all the competent generals, which I don't see happening--the party hacks were too afraid of the Germans. Henry Wallace potentially could be a disaster but I think the people running the American war effort would surround him and guarantee he did the right thing at least until the war is over. The key decision that he could have screwed up (by sending Marshall rather than Ike to run Overlord) had already been made. The really bad thing is that we don't get Truman as president--the architect of Cold War victory. On the other hand, we might get Ike as president in 1948. With Ike in the White House and Zhukov in the Kremlin, we might see a much less intense Cold War developing--one that will be less expensive for both sides and will end sooner. It was inevitable that the Soviets would occupy much of Eastern Europe and keep Germany divided, but this might be regarded as less threatening in the West without Stalin in charge. Ike might even persuade his war friend to move towards a freer society.
Last edited:
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I think the real change comes after the war. I see Henry Wallace,running as the heir to the New Deal winning his own term. He also uses the don't swap horses in the middle of the stream platform. He would strive for peaceful coexistance with the Soviet Union.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I agree with the Bat twins. We could see Ike in 48. Wallace's niave attitude toward the Soviets and his lack of political skills would bring an angry public reaction and Ike could see this as the perfect opportunity.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
in early 1948. Wallace would have only been president for a little over four years. I could see him wanting another term.I also think he would have trouble
even winning the nomination.
even winning the nomination.
BlairWitch749
Banned
i wonder if this would be enough to convince the british to pull the wmd card and end the war semi immediately
Or the Western Allies get pissed, Ike doesn't slow down the troops for political considerations and the Allies march into Berlin earlier.
Well, if there is a power struggle in the Soviet Union, then the Army will certainly be involved. The Eastern Front can probably be a stalemate for a few months, saving the Germans 3-6 months possibly.
The Allies land in 1944 as per OTL, and probably will reach Berlin first, and probably get into the Balkans. The most the Soviets will get is Poland, and maybe Romania.
The Allies land in 1944 as per OTL, and probably will reach Berlin first, and probably get into the Balkans. The most the Soviets will get is Poland, and maybe Romania.
A power struggle in the USSR is possible, but unlikely. Even if there is a power struggle, it would probably be quick and only involve a handful of very senior political members dead. A triumvirate is the most probable result until the war is over, but without Stalin imposing his will on the generals the Red Army will have more weight to throw around in Soviet internal politics. For now, though, the priority is beating the Germans.
If the Germans hold off the Soviets longer, then they slow down the Allies just as much because they can put more forces in the west. And even if you were correct, the Soviets would still only lose Czechloslovakia. The Romanians and Bulgarians gave in even before the Soviets had occupied Poland and Budapest was already under seige by the time the Allies crossed the Rhine.
If the Germans hold off the Soviets longer, then they slow down the Allies just as much because they can put more forces in the west. And even if you were correct, the Soviets would still only lose Czechloslovakia. The Romanians and Bulgarians gave in even before the Soviets had occupied Poland and Budapest was already under seige by the time the Allies crossed the Rhine.
Faeelin
Banned
"They shot Churchill. let's fold."
Or, "Let's burn their cities and sow the earth with salt."
Wow, I'm surprised that I've never heard of this Operation Long Jump. Heading over to Wikipedia at this very instant to learn more
I think as it's 1943, The Reich will lose ultimately, however do we for example have the A-bombings in Japan under the new US administration?