Alternate cold war if the USSR liberated all of europe during WW2

Lets say D-Day fails, or the soviets do better against the nazis on the eastern front, leading to the red army liberating all of europe. As we know from OTL, the soviets were able to greatly boost the popularity of communist parties in the liberated nations, leading to communist takeovers via elections and coups. So would this happen in his TL, aswell (many western countries had a strong communist presence after WW2, even in OTL). How would this affect post war western europe, and what would the effect of an atlantic iron curtain be?
How would the alternate cold war look, with the communist bloc stretching from Pyonjang to Lyon and Naples, while the US only has Britain, the Anglosphere and maybe Japan? Especially with the soviets having more trading partners, therefore deveolping faster and having stronger military and economic power.
 
Well without the Marshall plan aid it takes a while longer for the Soviets and Western Europe to recover. They were perfectly capable of rebuilding it in the long run but it might take 3-5 years longer than IOTL and possibly postpone the Soviet Atomic program by a similar timespan. Furthermore, the devastating combination of bad winters, food shortages, and insufficient rebuilding that hit Western Europe and IOTL helped boost the popularity of the Reds would hurt the Soviets ITTL. Whether this is enough to cost them control over France and Italy is doubtful but, again, every rouble spent on the Red Army "Protecting" Paris is a rouble not spent on rebuilding Paris. Unless, of course, the Soviets manage to have a Czechoslovakia-esque situation play out and use the cover of the bad winter to spring full coups.

Assuming that the Soviets consolidate their hold over the Western European countries the Cold War will play out much, much differently. The way I see it there are three main aspects to analyse: how it impacts the Soviet Military's capabilities, how it affects their cultural, economic, and diplomatic capacities, and how the West--i.e. the UK and US as well as maybe a "Free France" based in Algeria behing the USN and RN play out.

1. Military Impact (Soviet): The Soviet Union has a plethora of warm water ports that effectively cannot be blockaded by controlling the GIUK, Bosporus, or Skagerrak, Brest being the most important of these (though the fact that the Soviets now control the Kiel Canal does mitigate the strategic disadvantages of the Baltic ports). Thus the Soviets now have an actual incentive to build a major navy for offensive and power-projection operations, rather than just for costal defense. Furthermore, relying on the coast to provide a natural defensive barrier, relatively less emphasis is given to the Red Army as control is consolidated in Western Europe. Thus the main emphasis of the Cold War becomes a confrontation between US and Soviet destroyers if not carriers on the high seas, not GI Joe and Comrade Ivan staring at each other across border checkpoints. Since the Soviets will need to have nuclear powered ships in order to project power, the nuclear arms race will evolve differently. Likely the Soviets can never quite build a fleet matching the combined USN and RN, but either Mahanian doctrine or MAD (or some combination thereof) will mean that it doesn't quite matter since power projection capacity rather than absolute power is the order of the day.

2. Diplomatic/Cultural/Economic Impact (Soviet): The Soviet Union will have a much freer hand in Western Europe. Tito, more by necessity than anything, will have to play to Stalin's tune, and even the Nordics might hear the music. Depending on the POD here the Comintern might never be dismantled, otherwise, the Warsaw Pact and Cominform will include all non-Iberian, non-Nordic European states. Furthermore, I can imagine the Western aligned governments of France, Belgium, and the Netherlands might set up shop in their former colonies (probably Algeria, the Congo, and Indonesia, respectively). Thus, the Soviets have a much stronger geopolitical incentive to support anticolonial movements worldwide, while the WAllies will have a much harder time decolonizing in a controlled manner (esp. since the Soviet Navy can now project power around the globe).

3. WAllies: As previously mentioned the West will likely resist decolonization for longer. They will allow exiled gov'ts to set up shop in former colonies and furthermore will be reluctant to decolonize if they see every independence movement as a Soviet front. Britain might retain superpower status for a while longer but ultimately it will have to give ground to the States. Alt-NATO will be a lot less picky about whom it supports but at the same time might have a harder time attracting places like the Nordics which now have to contend with a much closer and/or more navally capable Soviet Union. On the flip side the US might not look too closely at people like Franco...
Overall by ~1950 Central/Southern Europe, France, the USSR, Red China, (all of?) Korea, and any parts of Africa that break free would be in the Soviet sphere (as well maybe India), while the Americas, UK, Iberia, and the remnants of the colonial empires as well as Japan and KMT China will be western-aligned. The Nordics will likely be neutral, and anything could happen in the Middle East.
 
I have 2 small things to say:

First, "liberate" is a big word when talking about the Soviets occupying all of Europe. They didn't really liberate Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. but turned them into puppet states, forcing people under communist rule through propaganda and oppression. Same would be donewith France, Netherlands, etc.

Second, if the only thing that happens is D-Day fails, then the Wallies will still own Italy and probably tried it again to at least gain some footing in Europe against the Nazis, especially push harder in Italy. Maybe attempt landing in Greece and Norway to prevent complete Soviet rule. Something those countries welcome, maybe even the German occupiers.
 
if the only thing that happens is D-Day fails, then the Wallies will still own Italy and probably tried it again to at least gain some footing in Europe against the Nazis, especially push harder in Italy. Maybe attempt landing in Greece and Norway to prevent complete Soviet rule. Something those countries welcome, maybe even the German occupiers.

Italy would be split and there's no way that the WAllies would work with the Germans. IOTL furthermore in Greece the Civil War was a damn near run thing and ITTL the Red Army could play a larger role. The WAllies won't risk starting a war after the Germans have surrendered to the Soviets even if there are rogue divisions in Greece.
 
Italy would be split and there's no way that the WAllies would work with the Germans. IOTL furthermore in Greece the Civil War was a damn near run thing and ITTL the Red Army could play a larger role. The WAllies won't risk starting a war after the Germans have surrendered to the Soviets even if there are rogue divisions in Greece.

Take in consideration that the URSS was at end of his logistic line in OTL and 'liberate' the rest of western europe with Germany not fighting also the anglo-american mean a lot more of death for them, so it's more the soviets that will not risk a war with the Wallies; on the other side the Wallies will push with even more force in Italy and frankly if the Germans need to choose between the Wallies and the Soviet for some type of surrender...well they will not choose the Soviet.
So i doubt that the Red Army will have much more strengh and will to go through the alps (that not only are a horrible terrain for the defender but have also a lot of fortification still functioning).
Regarding Greece, a greater presence of allied military personell can avoid...maybe i'm don't know much of the argument
 
I have 2 small things to say:

First, "liberate" is a big word when talking about the Soviets occupying all of Europe. They didn't really liberate Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. but turned them into puppet states, forcing people under communist rule through propaganda and oppression. Same would be donewith France, Netherlands, etc.

"Liberate" is right when you consider who they were liberated FROM.


Also, if the W.A. don't cuddle up to Franco, we might see a Soviet invasion of Spain in the late 40s and early 50s.
 
I'm not quite seeing the Soviets getting further west then the Rhine region regardless of the PoD. D-Day failing still leaves the WAllies in the fight, in Italy, and likely to mount an invasion of southern France and drive the Germans out of there and much of the low countries by the time the Soviets reach the Rhine. Even if we assume a early PoD where Barbarossa strangles itself at Smolensk-Kiev for whatever reason, thereby allowing the Soviets to bounce back bigger and harder in 1942 and roll into Berlin by the end of '43 or start of '44, that still results in German resistance unravelling afterwards which means the Western Allies can just walk into Italy, France, and the bulk of the Low Countries in the face of pretty much no opposition.

Only if there is a subsequent war between the WAllies and the Soviets (which would require either someone far more ambitious then Stalin on the Soviet end or ASB-levels of stupidity on the WAllied end) could the Soviets possibly then march the rest of the way to the channel, but that isn't very likely.
 
No. Not even then. The Poles still able and willing to resist rose up against the Soviets and were slaughtered/imprisoned. They were conquered by yet another outside dictatorship and ruled over by collaborators for decades.

Technically a better fate then the one the Nazis had planned for them. One could say the Poles were "liberated" from extinction (in the form of the Nazis) by tyranny (in the form of the Soviets). Of course, that is merely a question of degrees and is of debatable quality as far as liberations go...
 

Deleted member 1487

Technically a better fate then the one the Nazis had planned for them. One could say the Poles were "liberated" from extinction (in the form of the Nazis) by tyranny (in the form of the Soviets). Of course, that is merely a question of degrees and is of debatable quality as far as liberations go...
Technically speaking yes...but less bad doesn't mean they were any less conquered by an outside power especially in comparison with potentially actually being liberated by the Wallies at some point and the government in exile being able to return to their home country. Now if we were talking about the Czechoslovaks that would be a bit more nebulous given the lack of popular support the exiled government had by 1945. If we are talking about areas the Nazis didn't have genocidal plans for in say Western Europe or Italy they'd be straight up conquered, switching one dictatorship for another without being 'rescued' from a worse fate.
 
If D-Day fails, there's no chance in hell the Soviets overrun Europe; you've just freed up over 50% of the Panzer force for duty in the East and prevented Allied tac air from getting French bases they used to shut down the German transportation network in late 1944. You've also reduced the ability of the Allies to get the Swedes to cut off iron ore shipments as well as given the Germans the ability to continue deploying new Anti-Air methods and technologies. To get an actual Soviet Europe, you'd need an earlier PoD, probably 1941, and even then I'm iffy on the matter simply because the Germans would throw open the fronts for the Brits and Americans to make landings if it becomes likely the Soviets are going to take it all.
 
If D-Day fails, there's no chance in hell the Soviets overrun Europe; you've just freed up over 50% of the Panzer force for duty in the East

“Over 50%”? Total German panzers deployed in Normandy were 2,200 armored fighting vehicles, with the Italian Front adding another few hundred, as opposed to the 4,400 on the Eastern Front. In what world is that over 50% of German panzer forces? Hell, the Germans lost more AFVs on the Eastern Front in the summer of 1944 (roughly 3,000) then they deployed in the west.

and prevented Allied tac air from getting French bases they used to shut down the German transportation network in late 1944.

Leaving aside that this is untrue, as evidenced by the German ability to transport the forces and supplies for the Ardennes Offensive into place and by WAllied documents which show that the systematic transport campaign on Germany proper didn’t start until 1945, that would be after the Soviets had already smashed the Ostheer, evicted it from Soviet soil, overrun Romania, Bulgaria, half of Yugoslavia, and were poised on the road to Berlin in the Vistula...

as well as given the Germans the ability to continue deploying new Anti-Air methods and technologies.

So the Wunderwaffen will save Germany... huh... that sounds familiar.
 
Last edited:
What cold war? They'd inherit europe's african/asian colonies, plus the industrial base of europe. My guess is WW3 before 1955 with the soviets winning.
 
“Over 50%”? Total German panzers deployed in Normandy were 2,200 armored fighting vehicles, with the Italian Front adding another few hundred, as opposed to the 4,400 on the Eastern Front. In what world is that over 50% of German panzer forces? Hell, the Germans lost more AFVs on the Eastern Front in the summer of 1944 (roughly 3,000) then they deployed in the west.

"As Germany prepared for this offensive, events in the West were also influencing Germany's capabilities. The expected summer Allied invasion of France had had dramatic consequences in terms of draining units out of the East. By June 1944 seven of the of the precious Panzer divisions were committed to France, and additional units were held back from the Eastern Front so they could be moved either East or West as the circumstance demanded. In the Summer of 1943 about 80 percent of German tank strength had been concentrated in the East; in 1944 this proportion was only a little more than half."

Bagration 1944, Pg 13 by Steven Zaloga, Osprey Campaign Series.

Leaving aside that this is untrue, as evidenced by the German ability to transport the forces and supplies for the Ardennes Offensive into place and

You mean the offensive that collapsed because of logistics and required capturing American fuel stocks to keep going?

by WAllied documents which show that the systematic transport campaign on Germany proper didn’t start until 1945

Citation?

that would be after the Soviets had already smashed the Ostheer, evicted it from Soviet soil, overrun Romania, Bulgaria, half of Yugoslavia, and were poised on the road to Berlin in the Vistula...

Assuming everything plays as IOTL....except it won't because we've already established things change drastically starting in June.

So the Wunderwaffen will save Germany... huh... that sounds familiar.

Not at all.

"In the final weeks of the war, the ammunition shortage within the flak arm became acute. The critical situation led the Luftwaffe to test a projectile with a contact and a timed fuse (Doppelzünder), the same round that a member of Speer´s ministry refused to support in 1944, based on safety considerations involved with the transportation of these munitions. During combat trials in Munich on April 9, heavy flak batteries using these rounds brought down thirteen aircraft at the cost of a mere 370 rounds per shootdown, an extraordinary favorable ratio compared with the existing average of approximately 4,500 rounds."

Flak. German anti-aircraft Defenses, 1914-1945, by Edward B. Westerman

On top of the deployment of the Doppelzunder rounds, the Germans had also learned that direct fire over time-fused bursts was superior in terms of bringing down Allied aircraft while also allowing for a higher rate of fire. Couple this with the introduction of the Egerland Radar system, and it's clear the Germans could have a much better go in the air war for 1945.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Leaving aside that this is untrue, as evidenced by the German ability to transport the forces and supplies for the Ardennes Offensive into place and by WAllied documents which show that the systematic transport campaign on Germany proper didn’t start until 1945, that would be after the Soviets had already smashed the Ostheer, evicted it from Soviet soil, overrun Romania, Bulgaria, half of Yugoslavia, and were poised on the road to Berlin in the Vistula...
Just a point of order here, the strategic bombing of German transport in Germany proper started in the earnest in December 1944, so the prep for the Ardennes, which stretched back into November 1944, was of course not particularly limited by the effort, especially as it focused more on industrial transport targets rather than military ones (plus military movements got priority for all undamaged transport movement over even economic ones, so they'd get to move even with major damage to say the rail and waterway movements). So yeah it isn't really fair to say that German transport was shut down by late 1944, it was being targeted with substantial effect, but especially since the Ardennes offensive wasn't known about by strategic military planners on the WAllied side specific interdiction against it wasn't targeted against it. Plus the prime targets of the transport campaign, rail and waterways, were not the primary means of build up for Wacht am Rhein; road transport played heavily into the build up and sustainment of the operation, perhaps the only German operation since 1940 that actually made use of the Autobahn in a significant way. Road interdiction wasn't really able to function given the really bad flying weather over Germany in the winter months.
 
I'm not quite seeing the Soviets getting further west then the Rhine region regardless of the PoD. D-Day failing still leaves the WAllies in the fight, in Italy, and likely to mount an invasion of southern France and drive the Germans out of there and much of the low countries by the time the Soviets reach the Rhine. Even if we assume a early PoD where Barbarossa strangles itself at Smolensk-Kiev for whatever reason, thereby allowing the Soviets to bounce back bigger and harder in 1942 and roll into Berlin by the end of '43 or start of '44, that still results in German resistance unravelling afterwards which means the Western Allies can just walk into Italy, France, and the bulk of the Low Countries in the face of pretty much no opposition.

Only if there is a subsequent war between the WAllies and the Soviets (which would require either someone far more ambitious then Stalin on the Soviet end or ASB-levels of stupidity on the WAllied end) could the Soviets possibly then march the rest of the way to the channel, but that isn't very likely.

Well, the Western Allies couldn't 'just walk' into France and Italy without resistance. A landing operation requires a lot of logistical and strategic planning. An ad hoque landing could have severe consequences. And also these lands wouldn't be undefended. In OTL, the German troops in northern Italy, Denmark, Norway and parts of the Netherlands held out untill the German surrender. And the Western Allies didn't walk in, because they couldn't.

In a D-Day fails scenario, the Allies will get at least southern-, maybe all, of Italy. France is a other question. After the losses of D-Day it would have taken over 6 months for another landing of that scale to be militarily possible (not to speak about the pollitical character of another landing, after the first failed so miserably). Meanwhile in 1945/1946 the soviets take Berlin, and get all of the german occupied lands. And as I said, this means the red world reaching from Pyonjang to Lyon.
 

Deleted member 1487

"In the final weeks of the war, the ammunition shortage within the flak arm became acute. The critical situation led the Luftwaffe to test a projectile with a contact and a timed fuse (Doppelzünder), the same round that a member of Speer´s ministry refused to support in 1944, based on safety considerations involved with the tansportation of these munitions. During combat trials in Munich on April 9, heavy flak batteries using these rounds brought down thirteen aircraft at the cost of a mere 370 rounds per shootdown, an extraordinary favorable ratio compared with the existing average of approximately 4,500 rounds."

Flak. German anti-aircraft Defenses, 1914-1945, by Edward B. Westerman

On top of the deployment of the Doppelzunder rounds, the Germans had also learned that direct fire over time-fused bursts was superior in terms of bringing down Allied aircraft while also allowing for a higher rate of fire. Couple this with the introduction of the Egerland Radar system, and it's clear the Germans could have a much better go in the air war for 1945.
I actually was able to cross reference this claim against Allied losses and the Germans overclaimed significantly. They counted all downed aircraft in Bavaria as being attributable to this new round, but the combat test of it was only done in one place and the Allied records only show 4-5 aircraft lost in that raid, 13 aircraft in all raids in Bavaria that day. So in reality it was more like a 1000-1500 rounds per aircraft, which is still a major improvement, but not nearly as good as claimed. The other part of that is that they suffered no damaged aircraft in that raid, just those that were shot down, while in the other raids they suffered a number of damaged aircraft due to shrapnel damage. The trade off with using such a shell mean that the shoot down rate was better, but then forgoing all the damage inflicted by shrapnel and the casualties those caused. Plus too the only way the contact fuse worked was against huge massed raids of closely packed bombers and fighters, working less well if at all against looser formations. Also the Egerland system, which good and not yet ECMed into irrelevance (in time it would be, that's how war has worked with radar), was still only a prototype with only two units ever being constructed IOTL.
 
Hm... some very good ideas here. But lets move on. Now, after the war ended and europe is under socialist control, what happens next? How will international relations be? How will the new cold war go? Stronger domestic communist presence in Britain and the US?
 
Top