A different WWII

Eurofed

Banned
Poor soviets, they're doomed now!

Well, in the larger picture, they are (if nothing else because both the Euros, with Tube Alloys data, and the Yankee shall get nukes several years before they do, but even the conventional manpower and industrial balance is severaly stacked against them), since this TL has purposefully put Stalin in the shoes of post-Pearl Harbor Hitler, but they have got a rather strong entrenched position in Eurasia, uprooting them is not going to be easy, quick, or painless. By now, it seems like the most likely reasonable outcome would be eventual total defeat of the SovJap, either conventional or nuclear, but just like it was theoretically possible that the Germans could reap a compromise peace IOTL, it is theoretically possible that they could play their cards so well, or the *Allies bungle so badly, that they could reap some kind of compromise peace (while I do not see how the Japanese could ever escape total defeat), most likely a Brest-Litovsk deal. I welcome discussion on this point, since I could use the ideas, my strategic picture of the next years is still a bit fuzzy, and by now, this WWII has grown to be radically different from OTL, at least west of Burma, but please avoid Sovietwank where Stalin pulls men and tanks outta his butt, or the Stavka becomes a council of war gods.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
I was going to argue some more, but it is your timeline.
You are clearly not going to credit anything that challenges your handwavium. Carry on. I can always change the channel.

One man's handwavium is another man's carefully chosen plausible butterflies that accomplish the desired outcome. I am open to credit tweaks that do not ruin the outcome I'm trying to build, but I eventually tired out of attempts to push the TL to go where I do not mean it to go. You want a Soviet conquest of Europe WWII TL with Russia making all the right decisions and getting all the good butterflies, you write it yourself. However, if you wish to proffer sensible ideas on how the strategic battlefield of this WWII plays out, now that we are venturing in deep ATL waters, you are welcome. But no more Sovietwank, please.
 
Last edited:
Well, in the larger picture, they are (if nothing else because both the Euros, with Tube Alloys data, and the Yankee shall get nukes several years before they do, but even the conventional manpower and industrial balance is severaly stacked against them), since this TL has purposefully put Stalin in the shoes of post-Pearl Harbor Hitler, but they have got a rather strong entrenched position in Eurasia, uprooting them is not going to be easy, quick, or painless. By now, it seems like the most likely reasonable outcome would be eventual total defeat of the SovJap, either conventional or nuclear, but just like it was theoretically possible that the Germans could reap a compromise peace IOTL, it is theoretically possible that they could play their cards so well, or the *Allies bungle so badly, that they could reap some kind of compromise peace (while I do not see how the Japanese could ever escape total defeat), most likely a Brest-Litovsk deal. I welcome discussion on this point, since I could use the ideas, my strategic picture of the next years is still a bit fuzzy, and by now, this WWII has grown to be radically different from OTL, at least west of Burma, but please avoid Sovietwank where Stalin pulls men and tanks outta his butt, or the Stavka becomes a council of war gods.

Well, I don't see how the Soviets can avoid defeat (they're facing the best armies in the world, backed by the most powerful industrial power, and soon they're going to be bombed to hell).
Still, because we have now rational leaders in charge of the Axis, I foresee no extermination war like OTL (it would be far too costly).
A Brest Litovsk-like peace is the most realistic option I think (for the Soviets I mean, you're right Japan is utterly toasted).
 
Interesting and thought provoking timeline

I like the overall stance of your timeline where the finer details of certain events do not interfere with the overall movement of the timeline. For instance, the success of the Pearl Harbor attack, I take it that it is Dec 7, 1942. With 1 more year of radar training and on a higher defense position, could the US be more successful? Or would the US be even less successful if the carriers were in the mix? Either way, it does not matter because you have it that the Americans have to make use of the Atlantic fleet and that it is still the uniting factor that propels the US into the war.

It will be interesting to see what US Euro strategy will be. It looks like Japan is #1 for US while defending Europe is #2 priority. Can the Euros hold the line while the Americans aid in their defensive build up? Will the Americans aid with an offensive from Africa into the middle east or land in Norway (after a build up in England) to drive into Finland capture Leningrad and drive to Moscow?

It will also be interesting to see what the post world will look like after the Japanese are crushed and the Soviets are driven back.
Will the fascists turn into republic empires?

I can see the Brits and maybe the Irish and Scandanavians joining the American Union.

Will the USA still be called the USA, or will it adopt a new name for a new global presence, or maybe the USAA (United States of America and Australia).
What will the fate of the Filipinos, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico be?
 
though i believe that the expanded axis, and U.S. lend lease have a chance of victory against USSR, i do find the concept that Australia, NZ and Canada would join the U.S. this quickly harder to believe. Australia and NZ, though they have an envolving cultural identity of their own have been staunch "We are Britons" for some time, and canada as pointed out already has its defense 100% guarenteed by the U.S. regardless of it joining the U.S. I can agree that NZ and Australia would join up i cant see it been this quick. The US, especially when already at war against Japan will defend these countries anyway(especially Australia) as they are white, English speakers and placed in very useful strategic locations to stop Japan in the south pacific. They are also far enough from Japan that logistically supporting invasions or occupations of either nation while at war with the U.S. would be next to impossible, U.S. sub strength would quickly put a stop to any attempt, as would Japans achelles heel (lack of oil).
 

Eurofed

Banned
though i believe that the expanded axis, and U.S. lend lease have a chance of victory against USSR, i do find the concept that Australia, NZ and Canada would join the U.S. this quickly harder to believe. Australia and NZ, though they have an envolving cultural identity of their own have been staunch "We are Britons" for some time, and canada as pointed out already has its defense 100% guarenteed by the U.S. regardless of it joining the U.S. I can agree that NZ and Australia would join up i cant see it been this quick. The US, especially when already at war against Japan will defend these countries anyway(especially Australia) as they are white, English speakers and placed in very useful strategic locations to stop Japan in the south pacific. They are also far enough from Japan that logistically supporting invasions or occupations of either nation while at war with the U.S. would be next to impossible, U.S. sub strength would quickly put a stop to any attempt, as would Japans achelles heel (lack of oil).

Concerning the quickness of the Dominion-U.S. union, while it is my opinion that rushed full union as written in the TL is politically plausible in the extreme circumstances of WWII, and I would prefer it to stand as written for aesthethic narrative reasons (and it looks much cooler on the map), I acknowledge the variant as valid where the Dominions only form a confederal union with the USA during WWII, which evolves to US statehood in the 60s. While both outcomes are politically plausible, I acknowledge the latter may be more probable, and TL readers are free to picture Canada and Australia becoming "American Dominions" for a generation instead of immediate statehood. However, what is NOT ever going to happen is the OTL outcome, ITTL the total downfall of the British Empire wipes out any strong sense of political and cultural allegiance to Britishood in the Dominions and pushes them to seek safety in political union with America.
 
Last edited:

nbcman

Donor
Interesting and thought provoking timeline

I like the overall stance of your timeline where the finer details of certain events do not interfere with the overall movement of the timeline. For instance, the success of the Pearl Harbor attack, I take it that it is Dec 7, 1942. With 1 more year of radar training and on a higher defense position, could the US be more successful? Or would the US be even less successful if the carriers were in the mix? Either way, it does not matter because you have it that the Americans have to make use of the Atlantic fleet and that it is still the uniting factor that propels the US into the war.

I concur with your opinion. I don't think that with the Americans (+ others) military buildup that the Japanese would have the same success especially since the Americans would have the time to improve the defenses of the Philipines/Pearl and the SW Pacific Islands (such as Rabual) to defend the new 'Americans' in Australia.

Eurofed, have you examined the US armed forces buildup plans for 1941 & 1942 prior to OTL Pearl Harbor? (especially the naval buildup plans)
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well, I don't see how the Soviets can avoid defeat (they're facing the best armies in the world, backed by the most powerful industrial power, and soon they're going to be bombed to hell).

About this, I was wondering which the bombing range and intensity would be of the US-Euro Air Forces against the European USSR, given that Euro forces would not just avail themselves ITTL of airplane models that Euro powers did not have the opportunity to develop in OTL, but also of the British models, and since early 1944, US Air forces as well. The US-Euro bombers would be able to base from Norway and Sweden, eastern Germany, western Poland, Northeastern Italy, Austria, Bohemia-Moravia, Hungary, and Croatia.

Still, because we have now rational leaders in charge of the Axis,

Well, as an aside, I would hesitate a lot to define Stalin's leadership fully "rational", given his extreme paranoia; I would only acknowledge that in the 1941-45 period, his own mix of madness, with paranoia prevalent on megalomania, was strategically less self-destructive than Hitler's one, where the opposite was true. However, this does not exclude that ITTL, with the USSR being rather more successful in the early phase of the war, and much less so in the late phase, early overconfidence from victories and later stress of mounting defeats could push Stalin towards more and more self-destructive choices, like Hitler did. And anyway, ITTL Stalin is going to interfere much more with his generals, since he did not get the OTL sobering experience of early Barbarossa.

I foresee no extermination war like OTL (it would be far too costly). A Brest Litovsk-like peace is the most realistic option I think (for the Soviets I mean, you're right Japan is utterly toasted).

About this, IMO the only politically and strategically plausible way that Russia may escape total defeat and get a Brest-Litovsk compromise peace, is the Russian Army pulling a Valkyrie and overthrowing Stalin and the Soviet regime. ITTL, Stalin and the Soviet regime have painted themselves in the same geopolitical corner as OTL Nazi Germany of making themselves an utterly untrustworthy-uncontrollable and loathed rogue power/regime. Therefore, as long as they remain in charge, the US-Euro allies are not going to give them any quarter up to total victory (surrender of the USSR), or at the very least the destruction of Soviet Russia as a great power (the reduction of Soviet Russia to a Siberian rump which may look like as too weak and logistically remote for the *Allies to bother occupying), nor, I think, the balance of forces is such that the *Allies are likely going to be exhausted in giving up their basic war aim (especially since in a couple years, nukes are coming). If however, the Stavka realizes this and is able to coup the Soviet regime before US/Euro tanks enter Moscow (or their nukes blast it), I see the political and strategic opportunity for post-Soviet Russia getting a Brest-Litovsk/1991 deal.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
It will be interesting to see what US Euro strategy will be. It looks like Japan is #1 for US while defending Europe is #2 priority. Can the Euros hold the line while the Americans aid in their defensive build up? Will the Americans aid with an offensive from Africa into the middle east or land in Norway (after a build up in England) to drive into Finland capture Leningrad and drive to Moscow?

About the US strategy, I think that giving priority to Japan in the early phase of the war (1943) is essentially the result of the gradual formation of the US-Euro alliance, with the basis being laid down with the Ottawa Accords in Spring 1943, and being completely fulfilled in Autumn 1943 with the declaration of war to the USSR. Also in the first phase, Japan was not just the one declared enemy, but also a "personal" one, with the PH revenge issue, and the one that directly threatened America.

Once the US join the anti-Soviet war, and recover the offensive in the Pacific in late 1943 - early 1944, a grand strategy reassessment of theirs is coming where the USSR is going to be acknowledged as the most dangerous enemy in terms of manpower and industrial potential (much like Nazi Germany OTL), and US strategy shall shift to giving the USSR priority or at least equal effort. The process is only going to be a bit slower ITTL, since it is not also fueled by FDR's personal anti-German animosity as IOTL. But the basic strategic reasons that justified giving the priority to the European Axis power IOTL are still fully valid ITTL. FDR can only let his personal biases affect grand US strategy only so much against sounder strategic judgement of US political and military elites, plus his health and influence is going to decline rather quicker than OTL from the political setbacks he suffered ITTL.

In such a frame, not only the US are going to take their share of the bombing offensive against the USSR since 1944, but a significant share of US troops are likely going to be deployed in the European theater sooner or later. I see either or both of the offensive options you mentioned being quite likely, in the Middle East and in Scandinavia, maybe the former occurring earlier (it would be TTL equivalent of Torch and/or Italy) than the latter (it would be more like TTL equivlent of Overlord). This is going to be in addition to the Euro counteroffensive in the Balkans that is coming when the combined effect of US land-lease and Euro total industrial mobilization makes itself felt. Quite possibly in combination with an Euro or US/Euro amphibious landing in Greece and Turkey to reconquer the Balkans (ITTL the Euro powers are going to rely more on amphibious and airborne offensives, given their early positive experiences). I think a major offensive in the Baltic-Polish-Carpathian front is only coming after the Balkans and the Middle East have been reconquered, while it might occur in a close time frame with the Scandinavian offensive, if any.

It will also be interesting to see what the post world will look like after the Japanese are crushed and the Soviets are driven back.

Very true. :D

Will the fascists turn into republic empires?

Quite possible.

I can see the Brits and maybe the Irish and Scandanavians joining the American Union.

In the long term, the British are indeed headed that way, and quite possibly the Irish too. As it concerns the Scandinavians, I think they have equal chances of joining the US bloc or joining the *EU in the long term, possibily after teetering on the brink for a while. I think it depends on how much and how quickly the *EU evolves back from fascism towards liberalization after the war, when the "old guard" leadership phases out and post-war socio-political relaxation and demobilization occurs.

Will the USA still be called the USA, or will it adopt a new name for a new global presence, or maybe the USAA (United States of America and Australia).

This is a very worthy point. I think the issue of the name change shall be felt in US politics in the next decades, when the new states pull their political weight, and the US entrench their presence in the Pacific and East Asia, but so far I am yet uncertain as which an appropriate new name might be. USAA is a possibility, or maybe USAO (United States of America and Oceania).

What will the fate of the Filipinos, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico be?

I think that Alaska and Hawaii shall become US states on schedule in the mid-late 50s, the British West Indies and the three Guyanas shall join slightly later in the 60s when desgregation makes the statehood of black-majority states less politically sensible, and their example shall draw Puerto Rico to statehood in a short while as well. The US Pacific possessions shall either become part of the Hawaii at its own statehood or their own state in the 70s, and the Philipines are not going to follow the path to full independence ITTL, with the US having such a strong extension in the Pacific. I'm uncertain whether they stay a Commonwealth up to present times like OTL Puerto Rico, or they become several US states in the 70s-80s. Of course, if we follow the variant where the statehood of Canada and Australia is delayed to the 60s, the statehood dates of the other territories should be delayed accordingly by a decade or so.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
I concur with your opinion. I don't think that with the Americans (+ others) military buildup that the Japanese would have the same success especially since the Americans would have the time to improve the defenses of the Philipines/Pearl and the SW Pacific Islands (such as Rabual) to defend the new 'Americans' in Australia.

Eurofed, have you examined the US armed forces buildup plans for 1941 & 1942 prior to OTL Pearl Harbor? (especially the naval buildup plans)

Since I'm not familiar with those plans, which amount of limitations to early Japanese success in comparison to OTL would you envisage ?
 
Last edited:
Concerning the quickness of the Dominion-U.S. union, while it is my opinion that rushed full union as written in the TL is politically plausible in the extreme circumstances of WWII, and I would prefer it to stand as written for aesthethic narrative reasons (and it looks much cooler on the map), I acknowledge the variant as valid where the Dominions only form a confederal union with the USA during WWII, which evolves to US statehood in the 60s. While both outcomes are politically plausible, I acknowledge the latter may be more probable, and TL readers are free to picture Canada and Australia becoming "American Dominions" for a generation instead of immediate statehood. However, what is NOT ever going to happen is the OTL outcome, ITTL the total downfall of the British Empire wipes out any strong sense of political and cultural allegiance to Britishood in the Dominions and pushes them to seek safety in political union with America.

All good, its your timeline and i enjoy reading it. It does also look cool on the map. It will be interesting to see if the USSR can get through the war without the army and/or people rising up(especially natioalistic components eg. Ukraine,Baltic states, southern islamic nations). Stalin has lead them into a war that will kill 10 of millions, and ITTL the USSR is most diffenitly the aggressor. Also now with the USA in the war i suspect that the Russian militay learership knows that the failure to knock Germany out in the first summer offensive will make it near impossible to win the war as so much US equipment will be flooding into the AXIS
 

Eurofed

Banned
It does also look cool on the map.

So very true. :D:cool:

It will be interesting to see if the USSR can get through the war without the army and/or people rising up (especially nationalistic components eg. Ukraine, Baltic states, southern islamic nations). Stalin has lead them into a war that will kill 10 of millions, and ITTL the USSR is most diffenitly the aggressor.

Well, I think that after the first significant *Allied advances in Soviet territories, widespread anti-Soviet rebellions from the non-Russian nationalities, like the Baltics, the Ukrainians, and maybe even the Central Asian Islamics, are to be expected, since ITTL the fascist Euro armies shall behave much more gentlemanly towards them than OTL (both because racist fanatics like Hitler and Himmler are no more in charge and because alliance with the USA reins their current rulers in) and the candy-throwing US troops shall be a singificant part of the Allied invasion forces, so they shall see advancing US-Euro troops as their eagerly-welcomed chance out of Stalinist nightmare like OTL, but with no disillusionement.

Moreover, most of the lands occupied by Soviets are to be expected to develop a strong anti-Soviet insurgency once populations taste Stalinist brutality. This is surely true about places like Finland, Romania, Turkey, Persia, and even in places like Greece which OTL had strong Communist and anti-Communist components alike in their insurgency, the latter component is to be greately strenghtened by Soviets being the occupiers. The Arabs initially welcomed the Soviets as anticolonial liberators, but I would expect them too to turn antagonistic after 1-2 years of brutal Stalinist rule. Perhaps places like Bulgaria and Serbia are going to be the ones where the Soviets experiences less insurgency grief due to the philo-Russian sentiments of the population.

The Russian people themselves are going to be a more complex case. While it is sure that many of them shall fight the war with much less determination than OTL, since ITTL Soviet Russia was the unquestioned aggressor, it is also quite possible that like OTL Nazi Germany, apolitical "Rodina" nationalism keeps them loyal to the state, at least until the *Allies make sure that they offer a clear and decent chance of survival to the Russian nation.

The *Allies shall surely make it clear they give no quarter and ask nothing less than unconditional surrender as long as Stalin and the Soviet regime remain in charge, but it is also quite possible they make a public offer of a compromise peace to a non-Soviet Russia, unlike OTL. However, the terms of such a peace offer are not going to be too generous to Russian nationalist feelings: non-Russian European territories would be lost, quite possibly also Central Asia and/or Outer Manchuria, Soviet leaders and Russian war criminals would be asked for international trials, Russian disarmament would be enforced. The *Allies could however give guarantees of territorial integrity for Russia proper, and lack of extensive *Allied occupation beyond what would be necessary to enforce Decommunization and disarmament. They could also set up a non-Communist Russian government in exile.

I think that faced with this kind of peace, some patriotic Russians would cling with the Soviets to the bitter end, others would realize that it is the only way to save Russia from total defeat, and try to rebel against Soviet rule. In a totalitarian state during wartime, beyond passive resistance, sabotage, and rebellion once the enemy forces close in, the only component able to overthrow the regime is the army.

The Russian officer corps are sure to realize after a while that the war is surely lost and Stalin shall drag Russia into total destruction, so they would likely try to overthrow Soviet rule and negotiate a peace sooner or later. Now, the rebelliousness of Russian officer corps was surely curbed more strongly than German one by the 1930s purges and the Soviet regime kept more of a strict rein on the Army than the Nazi one, so finding the guts and the opportunity for a coup is going to be more difficult for the Red Army than for the Heer.

The historical evidence of totalitarian regimes in general and Communist ones specifically indicates that coups may happen, but typically only when the regime is in disarray from impending military defeat or severe internal power struggles in the ruling elite, and their success rate is not that much good (Italy 1943, USSR 1964 vs. Germany 1938 and 1943-44, USSR 1991, China 1971). So I would conclude that as it becomes more and more clear that the war is lost, some coup attempts, from the Red Army with possible support from party moderates, are very likely to happen, but their success is far from guaranteed. There is ample justification both for Stalin and his cronies getting a bullet in the head when *Allied tanks get close to Moscow (or *Allied nukes level a couple Russian cities), as for them remaining in charge up to the bitter end in a bunker in Sverdlovsk or Samara.
 
Last edited:
How are the creative juices flowing? also how much of the combined axis fleet has been reassigned for the pacific to protect axis interests? & how much of the soviet fleet is left after the first month of the war? any? How large is axis navy? how well intergrated? are they building ships at all now or ar they focusing all resources from the navy on tank and aircraft production?
 
It will be interesting to see if the USSR can get through the war without the army and/or people rising up(especially natioalistic components eg. Ukraine,Baltic states, southern islamic nations).
I can freely confess that I couldn't make myself suffer through another artificial timeline, built on premise that Keepers of Universe Must Manipulate Humankind to Destroy Goddamn Ruskie Commies Instead Of Germans Who Did Not Deserve Any Suffering. However, I have to remind that IOTL Baltic nations combined are half of Moscow's population, Eastern Ukrainian nationalism (aka "nationalism in Ukraine that matters") is largely post-USSR phenomena (Kiev had been dull and throughly loyal Soviet city as late as Summer 1991, when Russian cities had been cauldrons of discontent and anti-Communist organizations of different persuation) and Central Asian republics did not as much abandon USSR, as it had been taken from them against their will.
 
One man's handwavium is another man's carefully chosen plausible butterflies that accomplish the desired outcome. I am open to credit tweaks that do not ruin the outcome I'm trying to build, but I eventually tired out of attempts to push the TL to go where I do not mean it to go. You want a Soviet conquest of Europe WWII TL with Russia making all the right decisions and getting all the good butterflies, you write it yourself. However, if you wish to proffer sensible ideas on how the strategic battlefield of this WWII plays out, now that we are venturing in deep ATL waters, you are welcome. But no more Sovietwank, please.

No more Western Europe blowing Germany 3 years after they were conquered by them, please.
 
Top