A plausible 'Red Alert' scenario?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=11945161&postcount=40
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakonFin
It hindered innovation. What ever successes German innovation saw under the Nazi regime it could have developed without it in a democratic or vanilla-militarist Germany, say, even if not in the same schedule, etc. The Nazi priorities and especially the perceived needs of the war effort directed German innovation towards certain advances and applications so there were some pretty visible successes. But in general, a non-Nazi Germany would have done much better innovation-wise, only on a wider spectrum.

In fact, we could probably create a fairly plausible timeline where such a democratic or vanilla-militarist Germany as noted above fights a more aggressive Soviet Union in a war for survival and manages to create even more just purely military innovations than Nazi Germany, just because it has not gutted its education and scientific community the way OTL Germany did in 1933-1945.

A 'Red Alert' scenario would see Germany innovate far more overall and actually have a far better run military, because instead of having their Jewish officers sidelined or fired, along with the actual strategists, plus not having the younger generation poisoned with Nazi 'education' system would mean junior officers would know how to think, rather than being ruthless and ideological. The trade off is the youth is less physically fit and prepared for the rigor of combat due to youth organizations that were effectively paramilitary training for boys. Plus you wouldn't have huge investments in wasteful rocket programs or blockade of Germany, still have all the nuclear physics establishment, and not have university programs gutted by Nazi ideology. Plus Germany wouldn't be a police state, so you'd likely have far more intellectual cross talk, rather than infighting and compartmentalization. It would actually be an interesting what if situation where Germany is far less prepared for war without the Nazi buildup, but have far more potential to develop a high degree of technology, especially if working with the British and French in an alliance against the Soviets. Think a Tizard mission to Germany.

Actually as a POD you might have something coming out of a Hitler dies in 1932 situation, the Nazis not getting in power, a left coalition then rises to power in 1933, they then have a different deal at the World Disarmament Conference, perhaps getting French buy in, and as Europe disarms the Soviets continue to arm and expand their military so that as Europe isn't ready for war Stalin thinks he's got a shot to invade and win against disarmed Europe in the early 1940s even if its united against him. He could even use the various communist movements as a 5th column in all states. It would be an interesting scenario for sure and one that would probably be pretty nasty even with Soviet initial ineptness, due to the rest of Europe not having a major defense industry or standing military after a disarmament deal in the early 1930s.



Could we see a situation where Stalin doesn't do a purge in the late 1930s due to butterflies from no Nazis, a disarmament deal that gets Europe to keep their militaries at a low level thanks to the Nazis falling apart and not getting anywhere electorally, and then the Soviets violently spreading revolution in the early 1940s after arming up while everyone else disarmed? I'd imagine given the realities of logistics and Soviet issues with professionalism, even without a Great Purge, they'd still bog down in Poland after rolling the Baltics, Finland, and parts of Romania, leaving a weak Allied alliance including Germany to try and hold them in Prussia and parts of Poland and Romania. Of course the entire scenario might well be implausible. Thoughts?
 
Why doesn't Stalin do a purge? That wasn't affected by the foreign situation but of the man being a slave to his paranoia. The idea that Stalin would ever risk taking on a united west to spread the revolution is also a fundamental misunderstanding of his view of Marxist-Leninist ideology: since he believed global communist revolution was inevitable regardless, his first priority was to preserve the Soviet Union state (and, incidentally, his own power). He wanted the USSR to survive to see the revolution, not necessarily bring about it. Stalin's international policy wasn't motivated by ideology like Hitler's was, rather his view was a brutal application of realpolitik to marxist dogma (or perhaps vice-versa). This is the reason why he died of a stroke in bed and not of blowing his head out in a bunker under the Kremlin with a hostile world bearing down on him.

I'd imagine given the realities of logistics and Soviet issues with professionalism, even without a Great Purge, they'd still bog down in Poland after rolling the Baltics, Finland, and parts of Romania, leaving a weak Allied alliance including Germany to try and hold them in Prussia and parts of Poland and Romania.
Hardly. The Soviets represented far more formidable military-industrial potential then Nazi Germany did. A disarmed Europe and an early-40s no-purge USSR going insane and rolling west would see the Red Army blow through Poland and plunge deep into Germany before they are forced into a strategic pause. If the Germans are lucky, they'll be able to avoid the Ruhr getting devastated, but at minimum everything east of the Elbe is going to get wrecked in a devastating and prolonged war with a rather uncertain ending. The Anglo-French would undoubtedly assist, but their own casualty aversion means the bulk of death and destruction of repulsing the Red Army will fall upon the Germans. And depending on the details of how the war develops, repulsing the Red Army might be all she can achieve.

Far more likely, though, is that the Soviets don't do any of it. Stalin does the great purge as per OTL, then simply sits back and keeps "building socialism" while conducting the occasional modest purge to keep everyone on their toes 'til he croaks and gets replaced by someone more moderate.

Your better bet is to get rid of Hitler and Stalin, instead having someone come into power in the USSR who does everything Stalin does (collectivization*, industrialization, military build-up) while avoiding the self-harming actions (famines which kill millions*, great purges) and is ideologically committed to exporting the revolution.

*Collectivization means your going to get famines regardless, but different actions by a different leader in the details of the execution of collectivization could have prevented it from being the utterly murderous atrocity it was OTL. We're only talking hundreds of thousands dead instead of millions, mind, but that's still a relative improvement.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Stalin of course was famously paranoid about the world uniting against him and internal enemies, but you don't think that if he thinks he can spread the revolution and get the resources/technologies of his neighbors that he wouldn't expand if he was assured of victory, say through their disarmament? Foreign wars provide a great way to distract the public from incompetent rule and focus the attention of potential coup attempts outward.

Edit:
as to the Red Army being stopped in Poland, I'm basing my claim on the historical Soviet army in 1941 having 5 million men. ITTL they would have to invade Finland, Romania, Poland, the Baltic states, while keeping over 1 million men in the East. Logistically they couldn't make it to the German border from the 1939 border without a long operational pause, especially given their level of motorization in 1941, which gives the other Central European and Western European states a chance to mobilize and check even a larger Soviet military over that wide of a front. The Poles won't be a push over with only one front and Western support, the Czechs weren't pushovers either even with some demilitarization, the Romanians aren't totally useless, the Italians had a sizeable force they could properly equip without Mussolini's efforts to overexpand and conquer and empire, while France and Britain aren't going to exactly have tiny, ill equipped forced even with demilitarization talked about in 1933-34. In fact to a degree they will be able to modernize a smaller military far better than the larger one they had IOTL. Even the Germans would probably have a significantly more modern force, even if small, once freed from the ToV due to the superseding treaty in Switzerland. So while the Soviets have numbers on their side and are a match for the combined demilitarized militaries of Europe in 1941-42 given OTL levels of build up, they will be checked for a while in Poland while they move up their logistics, which gives the rest of Europe time to mobilize and deploy, pretty much ensuring the lines solidify. That is where the US would come in, because like IOTL when the British and French were unable to match German armament levels with their own smaller defense industries, they outsourced weapons production to the US via purchasing and probably will too, which enables them to match Soviet armaments production. That leaves the Soviets probably stalled in East Prussia/West Poland by the time all sides weigh in with all they've got; even Soviet numbers won't break that line, which leaves both sides arming up as quickly as they can to break the stalemate or signing a cease fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stalin of course was famously paranoid about the world uniting against him and internal enemies, but you don't think that if he thinks he can spread the revolution and get the resources/technologies of his neighbors that he wouldn't expand if he was assured of victory, say through their disarmament?

No. Because he is not assured of total victory and would know it. He didn't underestimate the task of overrunning all of Europe like Hitler did.

Foreign wars provide a great way to distract the public from incompetent rule and focus the attention of potential coup attempts outward.
Short and relatively bloodless foreign wars provide a great distraction. Difficult and prolonged foreign wars tend to sap the strength of the state rather then reinforce it. The proposition of invading all of Europe sits squarely more in the latter category rather then the former.

Plus the entire reason Stalin conducted the great purges was to preclude any possibility of that happening, ever. There is no solid evidence that at any point in his rule of there being the potential for a toppling of the Stalin regime through a popular uprising or military coup. After the great purges, there is no confirmed instance of anyone in the Soviet heiarchy or even the general populace even contemplating trying an assassination against Stalin. Simply nobody dared. Hitler could only wish he had the kind of control over Germany that Stalin did over the USSR. Pretty much the only dictators who ever managed to compete were Mao and the Kim dynasty in the DPRK.

as to the Red Army being stopped in Poland, I'm basing my claim on the historical Soviet army in 1941 having 5 million men. ITTL they would have to invade Finland, Romania, Poland, the Baltic states, while keeping over 1 million men in the East. Logistically they couldn't make it to the German border from the 1939 border without a long operational pause, especially given their level of motorization in 1941, which gives the other Central European and Western European states a chance to mobilize and check even a larger Soviet military over that wide of a front.
Which all ignores that a Red Army which avoids the purges and then decides that 1941 is a great year to try rolling all the way to the Atlantic will be considerably stronger both quantitatively and qualitatively across all categories (organization, training, personnel management, logistics, leadership, equipment, and so-on) compared to OTL while the German military is weaker both quantitatively and qualitatively (since disarmament leaves less stuff for the German military to train and test out their theories with, meaning the Heer's development of mobile warfare will lag).

Trying to use the OTL 1941 Red Army, which had suffered from perilous purges and was largely unmobilized at peace time readiness, as an indicator of the IATL 1941 Red Army's quality and quantity is a non-starter.
 
Last edited:
Top