3 Sides to WWII

  • Thread starter Deleted member 9338
  • Start date

Deleted member 9338

While the sides in World War II seem to always be looked at as the Allies against the Axis. What appears to be skipped is that from Sept 1939 to June of 1941 there were in reality three side; Allies lead by the British Empire, the Axis and the Comintern/Soviet Union.

Both Britain and France were in the process of sending supplies and troops to assist Finland in the Winter War of 1939-40.

Is it possible for World War II to occur with these three sides fighting to the end of the war? What would cause an end of hostilities?
 
Start a game of HoI 2 or 3 play as Comintern and DoW allies and see. :D

But seriously, though, i can totally see something out of 1984 coming to pass in this situation. Three super countries duking it out.
 

Eurofed

Banned
While the sides in World War II seem to always be looked at as the Allies against the Axis. What appears to be skipped is that from Sept 1939 to June of 1941 there were in reality three side; Allies lead by the British Empire, the Axis and the Comintern/Soviet Union.

Both Britain and France were in the process of sending supplies and troops to assist Finland in the Winter War of 1939-40.

Is it possible for World War II to occur with these three sides fighting to the end of the war? What would cause an end of hostilities?

Yep. Make the Entente declare war to the USSR in 1939-40 either when it invades eastern Poland or when it attacks Finland. Then, when Hitler invades the USSR, the Allies deem both the fascists and the communists far too untrustworthy and loathsome for an alliance of convenience, and keep fighting both sides. In all likelihood, this ends with the Americans nuking both Germany and the USSR into surrender.
 
Historically WWII *was* a three-sided war. Stalin's intention with the pact was to have fascism and democracy exhaust themselves so Communism could swoop in and pick up the pieces, the Nazis intended to wipe out the USSR and turn France into a satellite while crippling Britain, and the democracies were desperately hoping fascism and communism would destroy each other. As it turned out fascism overran pretty much everything it turned against in the first two years but communism proved the better ideology at modern war in the last four.

Fortunately for democracy the war between fascism and communism was an expensive enough victory for communism that it never really had the chance to get truly bigger and more menacing than it in fact was. More fortunately the USSR was smart enough to delay its hostility to the democracies after 1941 until the war was over. The Nazis never met a treaty they didn't break or an ally they didn't betray.
 
Could make it a 3 way by, after the first few Arctic Convoys, the British decide it's just too expensive an undertaking given their already stretched merchant fleet and backing off, rankling Stalin and making him less friendly towards the Allies.
 
Could make it a 3 way by, after the first few Arctic Convoys, the British decide it's just too expensive an undertaking given their already stretched merchant fleet and backing off, rankling Stalin and making him less friendly towards the Allies.

Those Arctic Convoys never did anything IOTL meaningfully anyway....
 
Those Arctic Convoys never did anything IOTL meaningfully anyway....
You may want to rephrase that. The Russians ended up with 2,000 locomotives, 11,000 rail cars, 18,700 aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks (by the end of the war, 2/3 of the trucks in the Red Army were American-built). Other vital supplies were aluminium, telephone cables, canned food, and clothing.
 
You may want to rephrase that. The Russians ended up with 2,000 locomotives, 11,000 rail cars, 18,700 aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks (by the end of the war, 2/3 of the trucks in the Red Army were American-built). Other vital supplies were aluminium, telephone cables, canned food, and clothing.

Much of that did not come via the Arctic Convoys. Aircraft often were delivered via the Alaska-Siberia route and much of the American traffic was routed through Iran.

However the Arctic convoys were important as both a faster route (during the winter) and a political statement
 
You may want to rephrase that. The Russians ended up with 2,000 locomotives, 11,000 rail cars, 18,700 aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of trucks (by the end of the war, 2/3 of the trucks in the Red Army were American-built). Other vital supplies were aluminium, telephone cables, canned food, and clothing.

Most of that was through US Lend-Lease that arrived via the Pacific or through Iran. The Murmansk Convoys were a political gesture, not anything that altered the war one way or another.
 
While the sides in World War II seem to always be looked at as the Allies against the Axis. ...

Is it possible for World War II to occur with these three sides fighting to the end of the war? What would cause an end of hostilities?

The POD must be before June 22 1941 - anything after that would be ASB.

Well, let France and Britain start operation Pike, bombing of the Soviet oil fields in Kaukasus, in Mars-April 1940. That would probably lead to war between UK/France and the Soviet Union, with the middle east (Iraq, maybe Iran) as the first battleground. How the Soviet union passes through Turkey and/or Iran to reach Iraq is another story.

This leads to massive butterflies - an UK that already bombed Soviet may be more aggressive regarding Norway, leading either the Norwegians to mobilize earlier (very bad news for the Germans - just one days preparation and the invasion would be a slugging match) or the british navy to intercept the german invasion ships (about as bad for the Germans). Or not.

The German invasion of 10 May would go more or less according to plan, I think. A new war, although distant, may lead to more watchfullness and readiness among the Belgian, Dutch, French and British forces - but I doubt it. Operation Pike seem to mainly need "heavy bombers", not fighters or ships, so I guess the Fall of France and Battle of Britain goes IOTL. But many times the margins were very small, so a partial failure at Dunkirk is possible. The war in the West would be prioritized and the war in East a sideshow for the British.

To be frank I have no idea of the Red Armys capacity to wage war in the Middle East 1940. The central asian recruits weren't seen as the best or most reliable soldiers. The bombing raids may be initial successes - the Baku oil fields seemed to be very vernuable and Caucasus was the main Soviet oil source, but would it result in long term damages bad enough to the Soviet military?

An UK that unprovoked started a new war would probably be far less attractive for USA. Could it lead to a less favorable lend-lease? What would the Commonwealth say about sending troops to Iraq/Iran for fighting against Soviets - at the same time that UK demanded help against the Germans AND Japan was moving? How would the Iraqs that 1941 held a German-leaning military coup act - fight against the Soviets, sit it out or fight against the British?

Would Japan be tempted to attack the Soviet Union by 1940? Yes, they had been defeated before, but a Red Army without fuel and deploying troops against the British would be easier. On the other hand - was there anything for Japan to conquer in Siberia that they couldn't get quicker and easier in southeast Asia?

The european states such as Yogoslavia, Italy, Romania etc. would be in far more of a bind with an existing state of war between UK and Soviet. Diplomacy would be very difficult. On the other hand it could make it possible for some smaller powers to ally with Soviet Union as a defence against Germany.

Even with this background Hitler will attack Soviet. Nazism and communism could not co-exist in so close proximity and without nukes. Barbarossa 2 would interesting - the Soviet Union has mobilized for war, but in the south and taken losses for a year, not to mention the oil situation. But that have lead to combat experience for the Soviets.

The entry of Japan and USA into WW2 would be interesting.
 
The problem with a three-sided WWII is as follows:
USA > USSR
USA > Germany

and arguably:
USA > USSR + Germany

Eventually, America wins.

Mike Turcotte
 
The problem with a three-sided WWII is as follows:
USA > USSR
USA > Germany

and arguably:
USA > USSR + Germany

Eventually, America wins.

Mike Turcotte

Only after the kind of war that would make the Anglo-American Nazi War look like a Sunday stroll in the Park. The USA batters through Germany at the cost of turning it into a wasteland and *then* has to do the same with a USSR much larger, better-armed, better-led, and with a manpower pool far larger than that of the Germans and ample time to observe how the USA fights and with the rationalism inbuilt into Stalinism that would lead them to easily develop counters to the USA's strongpoints. Meaning the USA has to re-invent the wheel until it has enough nukes to exterminate everything human in the USSR.
 
Only after the kind of war that would make the Anglo-American Nazi War look like a Sunday stroll in the Park. The USA batters through Germany at the cost of turning it into a wasteland and *then* has to do the same with a USSR much larger, better-armed, better-led, and with a manpower pool far larger than that of the Germans and ample time to observe how the USA fights and with the rationalism inbuilt into Stalinism that would lead them to easily develop counters to the USA's strongpoints. Meaning the USA has to re-invent the wheel until it has enough nukes to exterminate everything human in the USSR.

Maybe. But the OP was '3 sides', so I am presuming that the USSR and Germany bashed each other a great deal, weakening each other before the Americans even arrive.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'rationalism' in this context; rationalism and Stalin do not, IMO, belong together. Once the US achieves the tech edge, it's superiority over the USSR would only grow.

Please do not misunderstand me - the war would be hideous. Read the Panay War for what it might be like. But, in the end, America can get to Germany and the USSR. They can not get to America. Also, America's economy is larger. Finally, this war would not be fought in a a vacuum, and America could attract more allies - and more allies of means - than either the USSR or Germany.

Mike Turcotte
 
Maybe. But the OP was '3 sides', so I am presuming that the USSR and Germany bashed each other a great deal, weakening each other before the Americans even arrive.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'rationalism' in this context; rationalism and Stalin do not, IMO, belong together. Once the US achieves the tech edge, it's superiority over the USSR would only grow.

Please do not misunderstand me - the war would be hideous. Read the Panay War for what it might be like. But, in the end, America can get to Germany and the USSR. They can not get to America. Also, America's economy is larger. Finally, this war would not be fought in a a vacuum, and America could attract more allies - and more allies of means - than either the USSR or Germany.

Mike Turcotte

What I mean by rationalism is that the Soviet central planning and collectivization concepts had inherent to the concept a rational basis of decision that never existed in Nazism. This is how the USSR built a secular bureaucracy over several generations while Nazism was setting up a German self-screw.

Stalin was actually very rational, he just made some catastrophically stupid decisions.

The USA would pay an enormous cost in lives to batter through Germany, and it would pay an even higher price to tangle with Zhukov and company who are even better at war than the Germans. For that matter without the UK, how's the USA going to invade Europe?
 
When did the UK drop out of the Allies?

To judge by the people writing the scenarios when it declared war on Germany and the USSR. There's only "America wins" without indicating that it's a war between anyone else with the USA *against* those two dictatorships. Just the mighty USA against Nazi Germany and the USSR without any concept of how the USA gets across the Pond to start with. :rolleyes:
 
To judge by the people writing the scenarios when it declared war on Germany and the USSR. There's only "America wins" without indicating that it's a war between anyone else with the USA *against* those two dictatorships. Just the mighty USA against Nazi Germany and the USSR without any concept of how the USA gets across the Pond to start with. :rolleyes:

Right - so let's try this:

POD: May 1941: Hitler, infuriated by Hess's desertion, falls into a rage, has a heart attack and dies in front the General Staff.

In Germany, the military - with the jump on the SS because Hitler croaked right in front of them - moves quickly to secure power. Hitler's death is hidden for six hours while Goering is presented with faked evidence that the SS had der Fuhrer killed. Himmler is arrested, as are Bormann and a few others. Heydrich is allowed to succeed Himmler in an SS that is thought to be firmly subordinated to the military.

Goering is the figurehead, but the generals hold the power. Heydrich plays along for now. Barbarossa is cancelled, and the Germans focus on consolidating their position. Speer is put in charge of the economy, and quickly reports that it is unsustainable over the long run. Peace feelers to Britain are rejected by Churchill.

North Africa is reinforced, but the Germans realize that Suez is a longshot given British naval strength and Libya's port capacity. Still, with no Russia, it is the active front in the war, and given more attention.

On Dec 7, the Japanese raid Pearl Harbor. America enters the war, but not against the European Axis. Buttlerflies cause even worse British losses in the initial Japanese sweep. The shock of Singapore, a British naval defeat off Ceylon and a German offensive towards Alexandria cause Churchill's government to fall. The replacement government of Halifax agrees to a cease-fire (though not peace) with Germany. America and Britain do cooperate against Japan. Japan's navy is gone by late 1943.

Meanwhile, the Soviets have not been idle. Persia is occupied in 1942 under the pretext of a communist revolution against the Shah. Britain and America protest, but can do nothing beyond reinforcing India. The Iraqis look for protection from the USSR from Germany. Soviet troops also build up in Siberia.

In early 1944, two events occur that change the world. The US lands in China, and, after defeating the Japanese garrison, come into almost immediate conflict with the Soviet-supplied Chinese Communists. When the US takes Shanghai, the Soviets storm Manchuria. Both the US and Soviets lavishly supply their Chinese proxies, who in turn draw both deeper into China. An over-agressive Soviet commander moves against a Nationalist infantry corps, only to discover a US infantry division attached to that corps. A pitched battle between US and Soviet troops leads to war between the USA and USSR on April 22, 1944.

Meanwhile, Heydrich makes his move. On May 5th, the SS takes back control of Germany from the OKW. Pitched battles are fought; the result of which are lots of dead German generals and Heydrich as Fuehrer. He immediately implements his plans. Germany forces rush the border and attack the USSR - liebenstraum was Hitler's dream, and the best way to make sure the army doesn't challenge the SS is to make it fight the Red Army.

Also on May 5th, the Germans launch their navy (free to roam the Atlantic with a quiet Britain) at Norway. The Norwegian government - under Quisling - is considered too weak to resist a Soviet advance from Lapland. Two mountain divisions are being moved to Narvik to secure the north. The German task force blunders into another, smaller task force. That task force is a USN force hunting Soviet submarines. Both sides open fire, and Heydrich declares war.

OK - how's that as a starting point?

Mike Turcotte
 
Meanwhile, Heydrich makes his move. On May 5th, the SS takes back control of Germany from the OKW. Pitched battles are fought; the result of which are lots of dead German generals and Heydrich as Fuehrer. He immediately implements his plans. Germany forces rush the border and attack the USSR - liebenstraum was Hitler's dream, and the best way to make sure the army doesn't challenge the SS is to make it fight the Red Army.

Mike Turcotte

With the Wehrmacht firmly in control of Germany for 3 years, much of the SS leadership gutted, and Hitler dead, how is Heydrich supposed to pull off this coup again? And hell, how does Heydrich even escape the noose? He was already a major figure in the SS at this point, and I'm sure he would be seen as a threat.

I think the most plausible "three way war" is a Cold War situation where Greater Germany, whatever replaces the Warsaw Pact, and whatever replaces NATO standoff for 30-50 years, with a few proxy wars in the Middle East and other places.
 

Jlinker613

Banned
Well let's see how this could have happened...

The original Allies were Poland, France, and Britain, so if allies declared war on USSR and Germany it is possible. since the winter war started in November 1939, so the Finns could join the allied powers. So WW2 starts with:

Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, and Japan
Allied Powers: British Empire, French Empire, Poland, Finland, and China
Communist Powers: Soviet Union, Mongolia, and the Chinese Communist Party
 
On Dec 7, the Japanese raid Pearl Harbor. America enters the war, but not against the European Axis. Buttlerflies cause even worse British losses in the initial Japanese sweep.

What more did the Brits have to lose in the Pacific? IOTL Japan smashed and/or grabbed everything she had the means to and did so with trivial losses.

The shock of Singapore, a British naval defeat off Ceylon and a German offensive towards Alexandria cause Churchill's government to fall.

Why? All of these happened IOTL.

Japan's navy is gone by late 1943.

Gone as in completely neutered? That wasn't managed until late 1944 IOTL. If we're assuming an even more effective initial sweep (still not sure how much more effective it could be), bettering that time will be tricky.

In early 1944, two events occur that change the world. The US lands in China, and, after defeating the Japanese garrison, come into almost immediate conflict with the Soviet-supplied Chinese Communists.

In early 1944?! Where does the US get the amphibious lift and support structure to do this? True, with no war in the Atlantic the US can commit everything to the Pacific... but the real need is for large ships (amphibs, carriers, etc.) that can be built in larger numbers but not really any FASTER than they were IOTL. LATE 1944 would be pushing the limits of ASBism. Early 1944? The US would have had to hold the PI or Guam, or have a PoD well before 1941 to start building the right ships.

OK - how's that as a starting point?

Mike Turcotte

Highly creative, but I can't see it working anywhere but a computer game - and not even some of those.
 
Top