AHC:Less idealist FDR toward Stalin and results

I'm not quite sure of the POD here, but the result is that by 1943, FDR's opinion on Stalin is almost exactly equal to Churchill's opinion on Stalin. Stalin still gets his invasion of Western Europe and the materiel (or at least most of it) that he got in OTL, but there are no illusions.

Any idea how the war is effected? My guess is that FDR and Churchill don't see the need for the Soviets to attack the Kwantung Army, but if the Kwantung Army is still in Manchuria (albeit with no way home), do the Japanese wait longer before surrendering?
 
I don't think that much changes, actually. You're basically positing an FDR that's not only hostile towards Stalin, but willing to risk tens of thousands of American lives for Manchuria, no?
 
I don't think that much changes, actually. You're basically positing an FDR that's not only hostile towards Stalin, but willing to risk tens of thousands of American lives for Manchuria, no?

More of a willingness to allow the troops to wither on the vine. The best similiarity in the European Theatre is probably Norway. It wasn't necessary to directly attack the Nazi troops in Norway figuring that they can wait until after German surrenders. (Either they'll surrender when their Central command does, or they don't and they can be defeated later.)
 
I was under the impression that the Allies were worried that the Kwnantung Army would either end up as a redoubt for Japan, or be shipped back, no?
 
I was under the impression that the Allies were worried that the Kwnantung Army would either end up as a redoubt for Japan, or be shipped back, no?

Did the Japanese have either the oil or the troopships to ship the troops back in mid 1945?

And while I could imagine the Nazi's have a redoubt in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway or maybe elsewhere, I just can't imagine the Emperor leaving the Islands...
 
Most of the changes would likely not have materially affected the outcome of the war itself. What would change is that FDR would have bargained hard for specific Soviet concessions or actions in order to provide help or get his approval for the postwar settlement. Some of the below would require an earlier POD, or would be best if done earlier than 1943.

1) Return of all Americans currently living in the Soviet Union in order to receive Lend Lease. That would have enabled those Americans who emigrated to the USSR during the Depression to escape back to the US, including those sent to the gulags, which would have provided a lot of other information about the nature of the USSR. Certainly other concessions could probably be agreed to at this time such as restoration of the independent Baltics, agreement on the eastern border of Poland, and complete repudiation of Molotov-Ribbentropp.

2) The Allies don't simply turn over the Russian POWs back to Stalin because he asked. They either do not agree to it at all, unless the POWs request it, or get Stalin to make concessions on other issues.

3) The US and UK work completely with the Polish government-in-exile to secure an independent Poland. That means the Poles don't announce the Warsaw Rising on their own, but coordinate it with the Western Allies to insure airborne supply drops and Polish paratroopers. The Allies might also insist that Stalin coordinate his attacks in Poland with this in mind, asking for a specific commitment that his troops/tanks punch through to Warsaw once the operation begins.

4) In Spring 1945, emphasis is made on Patton's troops getting as far east into Czechoslovakia as possible.

5) Allies do not agree to supply Tito exclusively over the Chetniks. Instead, they supply the Chetniks alone or at least send them the bulk of supplies.

6) Since Bulgaria never declared war on the Soviet Union, but only the US and UK under duress by Hitler, the US insists the Soviets do not send their troops into Bulgaria. Instead, the US and UK will arrange for Bulgaria to enter into the Allied side and support the Red Army offensive in the Balkans. In essence, Bulgaria becomes part of the Western sphere of influence as the northern flank of British backed Greece.

7) When discussing the nature of free and fair elections at Yalta, specific commitments are made on what ministries will not have Communist ministers. In particular, the Interior/Police ministries need to be kept out of their hands.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Besides FDR having a much less naive and rosy-eyeglasses view of Stalinism, this would require him to realize that the USA doesn't really need the help of the USSR to defeat a half-dead Japan.

The Anglo-American stategy in 1943-45 could have been geared as to try and push the boundaries of the WAllies occupation zone as eastward as possible in Europe, while gradually shutting off Lend-Lease to the USSR once the Red Army crossed prewar Soviet boundaries, and dealing with Stalin strictly on a basis of facts on the ground and 'everyone keeps what he has conquered, no freebies' as it concerns the definition of spheres of influence in Europe.

At the very least, this strategy would have allowed the Anglo-Americans to keep Brandenburg, Saxony, Czechia, eastern Austria, and Trieste in the Western camp. Austria and Czechia would have been NATO countries, the GFR would have included OTL GDR, and East Germany would have been Pomerania and Silesia, Polish annexations would have been limited to East Prussia (no Kalingrad oblast, just Soviet basing rights) and Danzig.
 
That means the Poles don't announce the Warsaw Rising on their own, but coordinate it with the Western Allies to insure airborne supply drops and Polish paratroopers.

This bit pretty much requires the use of Soviet airfields, unless the Allies don't mind sending their transport planes on a one-way trip (or try too convert strategic bombers into transport planes which is... less then optimal).

Since Bulgaria never declared war on the Soviet Union, but only the US and UK under duress by Hitler, the US insists the Soviets do not send their troops into Bulgaria. Instead, the US and UK will arrange for Bulgaria to enter into the Allied side and support the Red Army offensive in the Balkans. In essence, Bulgaria becomes part of the Western sphere of influence as the northern flank of British backed Greece.

The Bulgarians have historically been very friendly with the Soviets, which is why they didn't declare. I don't think the Red Army even got too the Bulgarian border before they did their about-face.

Eurofed said:
At the very least, this strategy would have allowed the Anglo-Americans to keep Brandenburg, Saxony, Czechia, eastern Austria, and Trieste in the Western camp.

Maybe, maybe not. Any Allied attempt to go for Berlin (assuming a similar battlefield situation to OTL in March-April 1945) would require the forces on the Elbe to draw-up and make the relevant preperations for a Berlin offensive, with a start date being close too the Soviets. Once that begins, the Western Allies are going to deal have too deal with the fact that the advance of the 1st Ukrainian Front would be directed to block their path to Berlin from the South-East... which is pretty much the only way they would make it before the Red Army does. So it would be a race to see who got too those suburbs... with all the risks for 'blue-on-blue' (or in this case, 'blue-on-red'*) incidents.

Another thing to note is that if Roosevelt takes a different tack towards Stalin, Stalin will take a different tack towards Roosevelt.

General Tirpitz said:
I think it was actually Churchill who wanted to support Tito over Chetniks and made Americans to do the same.

Weren't the Chetniks collaborating with the Germans at one point?

*Seeing how the Red Army would be more distant allies at this point. If I were talking about the Germans, I would use 'blue-on-grey' or 'grey-on-red'... or just 'attack' since they were actually, ya'know, enemies with the state of war and all...
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Maybe, maybe not. Any Allied attempt to go for Berlin (assuming a similar battlefield situation to OTL in March-April 1945) would require the forces on the Elbe to draw-up and make the relevant preperations for a Berlin offensive, with a start date being close too the Soviets. Once that begins, the Western Allies are going to deal have too deal with the fact that the advance of the 1st Ukrainian Front would be directed to block their path to Berlin from the South-East... which is pretty much the only way they would make it before the Red Army does. So it would be a race to see who got too those suburbs... with all the risks for 'blue-on-blue' (or in this case, 'blue-on-red'*) incidents.

Take into account that an Anglo-American strategy aimed to defeat Hitler and contain Stalin may, and I assume it would, shut off Lend-Lease (except perhaps the foodstuff) after Bagration. This would do for a much less efficient Red Army in late 1944 and early 1945, which would gain less land more slowly and painfully.

Under this double premise (aggressive A-A land-gain strategy, dwindling Lend-Lease) my previous assumption of an Iron Curtain on the Oder-Neisse/Czecho-Slovak/Italo-Slovenian border might actually be a conservative one. With a little luck, the Anglo-Americans could also gain Pomerania and Silesia, Slovakia, western Hungary, and Slovenia-Croatia.

Another thing to note is that if Roosevelt takes a different tack towards Stalin, Stalin will take a different tack towards Roosevelt.

Probably, but he can't do really do any more than try and press forward the Red Army as much as he can.
 
Last edited:
I think it was actually Churchill who wanted to support Tito over Chetniks and made Americans to do the same.

The Teheran Conference was when the Allies agreed to support Tito and not the Chetniks. This was a demand by Stalin. One reason Churchill agreed was because of British intelligence reports that the Chetniks were collaborating with the Axis (Germans) and that Tito's Partisans were doing all the fighting. However, it appears that these reports were not completely accurate. Weinberg in A World At Arms says that Tito had just as much dealings with the Axis (Italians) too, but that these were suppressed by Communist agents within British intelligence. In other words, Tito was playing the same game as the Chetniks and were not necessarily better partners.

There is no reason to totally abandon the Chetniks. It was a demand made by Stalin, but the Allies did not need to comply with it. They were the ones actually delivering the supplies. If they had reason to think the Communists were deceiving them, they didn't need to totally cut off the Chetniks.
 
The Bulgarians have historically been very friendly with the Soviets, which is why they didn't declare. I don't think the Red Army even got too the Bulgarian border before they did their about-face.

Yes, you are correct about Bulgaria's friendship with Russia. Tsar Boris refused to declare war on the Soviet Union because of that friendship which upset Hitler. Hitler did arm twist him enough to declare a token war against the British and Americans.

Bulgaria had attempted to negotiate a peace treaty with the US and UK for a long time. There were Bulgarian representatives in Cairo talking with the British and Americans on getting Allied troops in Bulgaria because they were worried about the Soviets.

On August 26, 1944, new Bulgarian PM Ivan Bagrianov repudiated the alliance with Germany and declared neutrality. Soon he began withdrawing Bulgarian troops from Yugolsavia, and began ending laws that the Nazis had forced Bulgaria to enact. Because Bagrianov insisted on neutrality instead of declaring war on Germany, the peace negotiations with the US and UK didn't conclude and it was delayed. Because of the failure to conclude peace, Bagrianov was removed as PM, and Konstantinov Muaviev took over.

Stalin declared war on Bulgaria on September 5, 1944 and started occupying the country days later. On September 8, Bulgaria officially changed sides. Bulgarian troops were ordered to not resist the Red Army, and they occupied northeastern Bulgaria while local Communist seized control of the government. On September 9, a coup occured that allowed local Communists into the government.

If the US was leery of Stalin, they could have handled the diplomatic negotiations differently and concluded peace before Stalin declared war. With Bulgaria at peace with the Allies, or possibly even at war with Germany and a member of the Allies at that point, Stalin would not have had a casus belli against Bulgaria and Red Army would never have entered Bulgaria and been able to influence the Bulgarian government.
 
FDR is willing thus to engage in serious horse-trading at Yalta and this gives the USA a much stronger position at Potsdam. Harry S. Truman will not be VPOTUS in this scenario.
 
Top