A shorter WWII, larger NATO

Ok, here's and idea I had and I was wondering how plausible it is.
Let's presume that somehow, at least a part of the French leadership in 1940 decides to continue the war even though many are against it and want an armistice. The Germans do overrun France like OTL but they had to stop eventually do to logistical problems. The French evacuate this resistance government to Algeria along with the Navy, a part of the Air Force and some ground troops and civilians. They can be evacuated by way of Corsica which would make it easier and there would probably be British help. The Germans eventually take everything and even launch a bloody on Corsica which could be TTL's Crete for the German forces. Some collaborators will be found and placed at the head of a new quisling French state with the Germans running the show. No doubt the occupation will be much harsher than OTL.

In North Africa the Mussolini decides to attack Tunisia while the Germans are busy with fighting what resistance remained in France and preparing for an invasion of Corsica. Mussolini refuses German help wanting to have all the glory for himself. Now, in the Meditteranean there is the British fleet with a strong French fleet that is evacuated and they cause much more damage to the Italians making OTL Taranto looking like just a start. Operation Compass is launched as OTL, with the British effort going even better as there is no concern over colonies such as Madagascar or elsewhere and more troops can be brought not just no NA but also to Eastern Africa. the French, with British help in terms of manpower, money and resources and able to count on additional troops from colonies such as Syria and in Central and Western Africa stop the Italian attack in southern Tunisia and counterattack into Libya against a large Italian army that is facing a logistical disaster. Eventually, facing destruction they surrender and all of Libya is lost before the Germans can land so much as a regiment. Mussolini has to abandon the invasion of Greece with all the losses he sustained in Africa, heavy bombardment of cities in southern Italy and considerable naval losses, as well as significant lack of resources.

The Japanese are forced, perhaps unwillingly to invade French Indochina so they cut off the supply routes to the Chinese and continue the attack towards the south and this doesn't go well with them facing a bloody guerrilla war that would eventually reduce their OTL gains in SE Asia and causing the Americans to embargo them.

With North Africa lost in early 1941 Hitler relies on the Italians to protect the southern flank while he makes preparation for his long awaited campaign against Russia. He is forces to invade Yugoslavia after a coup that is similar to the one IOTL and attacks Greece to secure his flank. However, with his paratroopers sustaining huge casualties in Corsica he doesn't send them to Crete and the island thanks to allied support remains free. Bloody guerrilla wars ensue that year in Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece with both communist and royalist groups rising to fight. Operation Barbarossa goes similar like it actually did and is stopped before Moscow. A new drive in 1942 to take Stalingrad fails utterly.

In the Pacific Pearl Harbor happens and America joins the war. The japanese are however less successful in the Netherlands east indies after slowly dragging across the French Indochina. Germany declares war on the US. For the Americans there is no need to launch operation Torch but instead they invade Sicily and southern Italy directly in the summer of 1942, successfully tricking the axis into thinking the invasion will target the Balkans. By the end of the year Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Italy up to Salerno or Naples. In 1943 Wehrmacht is pushed out of Russia and suffers serious defeats in Belarus and eastern Ukraine. On the western front Normandy is invaded successfully and a month or so later France is invaded from the south too. By the end of the year it is liberated. Also, Mussolini's regime collapsed by now and Rome is liberated with a larger part of the country. Things are complicated in the Balkans with constant infighting among various rebel groups. However, the Greek government, being on Crete rather than in exile can exert much more influence on the resistance in Greece and with an earlier German retreat they could overpower even the communist rebels. I'm not so sure on the situation in Albania. As for Yugoslavia, the chetnik regime initially had the support of the allies but lost it eventually as they were mostly fighting the communist partisans and collaborated with the Axis. If they realise a sooner axis defeat they might change their policy and start targeting Axis and their collaborationist troops while trying to convince the British and US officers it was also necessary to remove the partisans and Tito. Chetniks were at least officially fighting for the king and the government in exile so they could draw on that support.

An interesting part here is Bulgaria. They never trusted the Germans really and could perhaps be persuaded to switch sides. That would cut off all Axis troops in Greece and also allow the Allies, once Greece is cleared out, to move up to together with the Bulgarians into Yugoslavia or Romania (although less likely).

Now let's say all these advantages allow the Western Allies to reach Berlin first and we see a British and an American flag over the Reichstag sometime in the first half of 1944. Soviets will overrun the Baltic, Ukraine, Belarus, Ukraine. Now here are my questions:

1. Poland most likely goes to the eastern bloc and an Oder-Neisse line established as the border to weaken Germany even further. What happens to Czechslovakia, Hungary and Romania? How will the post war Europe look like and be divided?

2. Will Nato and WarPac analogues arise like OTL?

3. How will France look like ITTL? There is no Charles de Gaulle the lead the Free French like OTL and that must have a huge influence

4. Would the communism spread be limited more than OTL? Perhaps the USSR falls earlier?

5. How will Japan fare in a shorter war? If it falls before the nukes are dropped how would that effect the future use of nukes?
 
1. Poland most likely goes to the eastern bloc and an Oder-Neisse line established as the border to weaken Germany even further. What happens to Czechslovakia, Hungary and Romania? How will the post war Europe look like and be divided?

Cezch or Bohemia was not overrun by the Red Army OTL, so it may be occupied by the Allies in this case. It really depends on what agreements have been previously made.

2. Will Nato and WarPac analogues arise like OTL?

Probablly.

3. How will France look like ITTL? There is no Charles de Gaulle the lead the Free French like OTL and that must have a huge influence
?
The other French leaders were not that much different.
4. Would the communism spread be limited more than OTL? Perhaps the USSR falls earlier?
?
Probablly.
5. How will Japan fare in a shorter war? If it falls before the nukes are dropped how would that effect the future use of nukes?

It wont be that much shorter as you have described it. The logistics capability & carrier fleet that enabled the advance across the Pacific was not much influenced by events in Europe. Unless the US changes its mobilization drastically 1939-41 major offensives in the Pacific wont start until 1943.
 
Cezch or Bohemia was not overrun by the Red Army OTL, so it may be occupied by the Allies in this case. It really depends on what agreements have been previously made.



Probablly.


The other French leaders were not that much different.

Probablly.


It wont be that much shorter as you have described it. The logistics capability & carrier fleet that enabled the advance across the Pacific was not much influenced by events in Europe. Unless the US changes its mobilization drastically 1939-41 major offensives in the Pacific wont start until 1943.
Well Nrno was captured by Soviets on April 26th Plsner by Americans on May 6th. So even if not completely overrun by Soviets they had nice chunks.

However Soviets pulled their army from Czechoslovakia mostly by fall 1945. Heavily wounded were transported later. I believe some of them in early 1946. Up to 1968 there was not Soviet army in Czechoslovakia!
 
... to move up to together with the Bulgarians into Yugoslavia or Romania (although less likely).
Well Romania was one of Germany's main sources of oil from Ploesti, if the Allies are in Bulgaria with a friendly local government I could easily see them trying to strike north to capture the oil fields and refineries. At the very least they'd take the opportunity to operate bombers from southern Bulgaria to bomb them into rubble.


Now let's say all these advantages allow the Western Allies to reach Berlin first and we see a British and an American flag over the Reichstag sometime in the first half of 1944. Soviets will overrun the Baltic, Belarus, Ukraine, [Moldova].
If the war is progressing faster then I would expect the Allied governments to be holding inter-governmental conferences just as they did in our timeline albeit moved up somewhat. You haven't mentioned it but I would have thought that planning for the occupation of Germany and division of such into zones will occur, if it's similar to our timeline with the Soviets receiving eastern Germany as their zone then will the Western Allies really want to be the ones to occupy Berlin? It might be rather cynical but why fight your way through territory that you're just going to have to give up, likewise urban warfare is always a meat grinder so does the prestige of taking Berlin outweigh the butcher's bill that could be expected? There's also the factor that if the Western Allies are doing much better in the west then the Germans are likely to transfer troops from the east making things harder for them but possibly easier for the Soviets and balancing things out a bit.


Poland most likely goes to the eastern bloc and an Oder-Neisse line established as the border to weaken Germany even further.
The Oder-Neisse line and 'moving' Poland westward likely still happens whether the Poles like it or not, I'm not so sure about their being part of the Eastern Bloc. Britain came into the war after guaranteeing Poland's independence it would be very difficult to walk away from that. Especially if the Western Allies are in eastern Germany already, the Polish Forces in the West are going to be exceedingly keen to get back home. What are the Soviets going to do if they try, tell them "Sorry, we're not letting you through because... uh... reasons". Now the Soviets have their Polish People's Army puppets so they're going to have a fair amount of influence but I think Poland would likely be Finlandised - free and democratic but, sitting between the Soviet Union and East Germany, having to remain neutral outside of NATO and the EEC and accept a certain amount of Soviet influence.


Would the communism spread be limited more than OTL? Perhaps the USSR falls earlier?
It might actually be more viable in Western Europe. Depending on whether they're Soviet satellites or not if Hungary and Czechoslovakia are Western states then that means no Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or Prague Spring in 1968, the crushing of which damaged the USSR's image and saw large splits form in European communist parties. If these or similar events don't occur then the facade the Soviet Union built about itself remains in place. They're still going to want to export the Revolution and it will still be as attractive to the Third World as it was.

Whether the USSR falls sooner or not there are a hell of a lot of butterflies flapping around. On the debit side they don't get to loot Central and Eastern Europe of resources, excluding East Germany, to help with their rebuilding, on the credit side it means less troops need to be stationed abroad or fraternal socialist states supported. The break-up of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union started and gained momentum in the satellite states, if it's just the unitary Soviet Union then crushing dissent becomes much easier.
 
Last edited:
Well Romania was one of Germany's main sources of oil from Ploesti, if the Allies are in Bulgaria with a friendly local government I could easily see them trying to strike north to capture the oil fields and refineries. At the very least they'd take the opportunity to operate bombers from southern Bulgaria to bomb them into rubble.

The coup led my king Michael of Romania made a huge difference in the war. Could it happen ITTL when the Soviets begin nearing Romania and if Bulgaria switches sides? It would completely cut Germany off from the Balkans and if done properly it might avoid the Soviet occupation of both Bulgaria and Romania. Romanian army can link up with Soviets in Moldavia and Bessarabia but would they stand each other after having fought so much in Russia? This would also allow the Bulgarians, supported by Allied troops, to invade occupied Serbia and penetrate toward the Pannonian plain, Romanians attacking across the Carpathians into Hungary from a different side and Soviets can move into Poland and maybe Slovakia?

If the war is progressing faster then I would expect the Allied governments to be holding inter-governmental conferences just as they did in our timeline albeit moved up somewhat. You haven't mentioned it but I would have thought that planning for the occupation of Germany and division of such into zones will occur, if it's similar to our timeline with the Soviets receiving eastern Germany as their zone then will the Western Allies really want to be the ones to occupy Berlin? It might be rather cynical but why fight your way through territory that you're just going to have to give up, likewise urban warfare is always a meat grinder so does the prestige of taking Berlin outweigh the butcher's bill that could be expected? There's also the factor that if the Western Allies are doing much better in the west then the Germans are likely to transfer troops from the east making things harder for them but possibly easier for the Soviets and balancing things out a bit.

I must agree here. A part of Germany must be seized to the Soviets after all they've done. Besides, an earlier invasion of Normandy doesn't have to mean they will be successful in the succeeding months as they were in OTL. And also, if the Soviets don't have to separate several hundred thousand troops to fight in the Balkans they can focus even more on Poland and eastern Germany so they might conquer as much as in OTL.

The Oder-Neisse line and 'moving' Poland westward likely still happens whether the Poles like it or not, I'm not so sure about their being part of the Eastern Bloc. Britain came into the war after guaranteeing Poland's independence it would be very difficult to walk away from that. Especially if the Western Allies are in eastern Germany already, the Polish Forces in the West are going to be exceedingly keen to get back home. What are the Soviets going to do if they try, tell them "Sorry, we're not letting you through because... uh... reasons". Now the Soviets have their Polish People's Army puppets so they're going to have a fair amount of influence but I think Poland would likely be Finlandised - free and democratic but, sitting between the Soviet Union and East Germany, having to remain neutral outside of NATO and the EEC and accept a certain amount of Soviet influence.

But if Poland is finlandized what happens to the Soviet zone in Germany? There needs to be a continuous directly Soviet-controlled territory and then this is a problem. And besied, western German leadership will know they need American protection while Stalin won't let them unite unless he can finlandize all of Germany.

It might actually be more viable in Western Europe. Depending on whether they're Soviet satellites or not if Hungary and Czechoslovakia are Western states then that means no Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or Prague Spring in 1968, the crushing of which damaged the USSR's image and saw large splits form in European communist parties. If these or similar events don't occur then the facade the Soviet Union built about itself remains in place. They're still going to want to export the Revolution and it will still be as attractive to the Third World as it was.

Whether the USSR falls sooner or not there are a hell of a lot of butterflies flapping around. On the debit side they don't get to loot Central and Eastern Europe of resources, excluding East Germany, to help with their rebuilding, on the credit side it means less troops need to be stationed abroad or fraternal socialist states supported. The break-up of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union started and gained momentum in the satellite states, if it's just the unitary Soviet Union then crushing dissent becomes much easier.

Again, I agree. I do have another few questions. What happens to other European countries? Czechoslovakia will probably stay united and as all Soviet troops did leave could we see Czechslovakia perhaps remain neutral or somehow prevent the coup that put the communists in power if it's perhaps the Americans that liberate it? Not sure how would that look or would they want to join NATO, especially with the Soviets so close and basically the only ones that can provide protection at the time in case Germany even tries anything again (at least it's what they thought at the time).

What about the coup in Romania that ended the king's reign and brought it under communist control? If the King succeeds in the coup and in turn manages to make a deal with the Soviets and even help the Allies in the war Romania could remain maybe remain free and eventually join NATO? Or would it pursue a neutral course?

Hungary could be liberated by a combination of Romanian and Bulgarian armies, perhaps with some British and Soviet support and maybe even some troops from Yugoslavia? If they do, and there is no 1956 uprising what happens to them? They too are quite close to the Soviets but may pursue a closer connection with the west for that reason.

Bulgaria? If Boris III stays alive and on the throne and also changes sides to help the allies he could manage. With Romania between them and the USSR they are relatively safe but they were also quite pro-Russian so I'm not sure on them.

Greece? Could we prevent the civil war if the government stays on Crete and has a bigger role in fighting the Axis on the mainland? If so, they could significantly weaken ELAS and in turn have a resistance group that is loyal to the king and the exiled government and together with the British support there (and the lack of Soviet or Yugoslav influence as in OTL) the war could be prevented, although I'm sure some problems will definitely remain in Greece.

And finally, Yugoslavia. When did the allies actually realize the Partisans were the true anti-Axis resistance force and switched their support? Perhaps the Chetniks are reasonable enough to see that the war will end badly for them so they increase their campaigns against the Germans and if they can convince the western Allies that a communist Yugoslavia is not in their interest (with the Soviets much further than OTL) could the King get enough support to return to the throne? How would all this look like? A democratic election? Perhaps a civil war?
 
But if Poland is Finlandised what happens to the Soviet zone in Germany? There needs to be a continuous directly Soviet-controlled territory and then this is a problem.
Does there? West Berlin sitting as an island within East Germany had air corridors that they were allowed to use for civil and military traffic and rail lines that ran special sealed trains from West Germany to Berlin and back again. I could quite easily see the Soviets demanding reciprocal arrangements through Poland to access their occupation zone, which along with sea access via the Baltic would be more than enough of a logistical pipeline I would have thought.
 
Top