Alternate WWII between Communism and Capitalism?

Exactly what it says on the tin. I was asking about all this due to watching Cody’s Trotsky video, reading an old post and also looking at some old content. Anyway, point is: how do I get post-WWII Europe to look like....

image0.jpg


This ^?

Any suggestions would be nice. Trotsky was my first suggestion, though I am open to other suggestions. :/
 
Have D-Day fail to get anywhere besides a beach head and have the Soviets do Operation Bagration earlier than D-Day, with the German army destroyed in the East there would be mostly nothing in the way of the USSR. The real problem would be both Sweden and Finland, since Sweden didn't fight in the war and Finland technically joined the allies at the end and the Finns kinda hated everything to do with Russia aka communism. Plus Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal who all didn't fight unless they joined the Germans and the Swiss the allies for seemingly no real reason.
 
Perhaps a Bolshevik victory at the Battle of Warsaw? Though a subsequent conquest of Germany seems unlikely, unless a successful revolution also happened there.

I'm not sure Crete, Rhodes or Cyprus would fall to Communism. Crete would be an excellent place for a Greek government-in-exile to have its headquarters, and so would be defended with significant naval power; Rhodes was an Italian possession and would likewise be heavily defended (I suppose a communist Turkey might be able to invade, but by all accounts the Turkish military was unprepared for offensive military action in the WWII period); and Cyprus was an important British colony.

I think the most plausible thing would be a civil war in Germany, with the Soviets supporting the 'Red' analogue whilst Britain, France and other western nations support the 'White' analogue. During the course of the war the Soviets sponsor communist uprisings in the Balkans and all of the monarchs and government cliques are forced into exile. Not sure how they could get Scandinavia - Denmark is easy to overrun from northern Germany, but Sweden and Norway are more challenging. Presumably the Soviets are able to build up a significant naval force in the Baltic, and take out Sweden in cooperation with the German Reds. Norway can fall after that if they manage to replicate the Nazi invasion of Norway IOTL.
 
Have D-Day fail to get anywhere besides a beach head and have the Soviets do Operation Bagration earlier than D-Day, with the German army destroyed in the East there would be mostly nothing in the way of the USSR. The real problem would be both Sweden and Finland, since Sweden didn't fight in the war and Finland technically joined the allies at the end and the Finns kinda hated everything to do with Russia aka communism. Plus Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal who all didn't fight unless they joined the Germans and the Swiss the allies for seemingly no real reason.

What about Trotsky by comparison? Fail?
 
Perhaps a Bolshevik victory at the Battle of Warsaw? Though a subsequent conquest of Germany seems unlikely, unless a successful revolution also happened there.

I'm not sure Crete, Rhodes or Cyprus would fall to Communism. Crete would be an excellent place for a Greek government-in-exile to have its headquarters, and so would be defended with significant naval power; Rhodes was an Italian possession and would likewise be heavily defended (I suppose a communist Turkey might be able to invade, but by all accounts the Turkish military was unprepared for offensive military action in the WWII period); and Cyprus was an important British colony.

I think the most plausible thing would be a civil war in Germany, with the Soviets supporting the 'Red' analogue whilst Britain, France and other western nations support the 'White' analogue. During the course of the war the Soviets sponsor communist uprisings in the Balkans and all of the monarchs and government cliques are forced into exile. Not sure how they could get Scandinavia - Denmark is easy to overrun from northern Germany, but Sweden and Norway are more challenging. Presumably the Soviets are able to build up a significant naval force in the Baltic, and take out Sweden in cooperation with the German Reds. Norway can fall after that if they manage to replicate the Nazi invasion of Norway IOTL.

So, Trotsky = fail?
 
Germany and Russia invade Poland on the same day (17th Sept 1939) and Britain and France Baulk at declaring war on both so declare war of neither and instead focus on rearmament

Possibly with germany having turned communist instead of National Socialist and effectively join the Russians earlier...?

Or once turned West and North they get stabbed in the back by the Russians in 1942 and while seriously distracted the UK Commonwealth and USA invade France and liberate much of Western Europe with Italy siding with them (having either not joined in or changing sides)
 
Barbarossa chokes up even worse then OTL. Maybe the Germans try to go for Moscow instead of Kiev in August-September only to bog down and get hammered by the that much more powerful Soviet counter-offensive.
 
The Greatest Genius of Humanity explains why this was unlikely :p:

"It is said that the contradictions between capitalism and socialism are stronger than the contradictions among the capitalist countries. Theoretically, of course, that is true. It is not only true now, today; it was true before the Second World War. And it was more or less realized by the leaders of the capitalist countries. Yet the Second World War began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist countries. Why? Firstly, because war with the U.S.S.R., as a socialist land, is more dangerous to capitalism than war between capitalist countries; for whereas war between capitalist countries puts in question only the supremacy of certain capitalist countries over others, war with the U.S.S.R. must certainly put in question the existence of capitalism itself. Secondly, because the capitalists, although they clamour, for "propaganda" purposes, about the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union, do not themselves believe that it is aggressive, because they are aware of the Soviet Union's peaceful policy and know that it will not itself attack capitalist countries..." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch07.htm
 
The Greatest Genius of Humanity explains why this was unlikely :p:

"It is said that the contradictions between capitalism and socialism are stronger than the contradictions among the capitalist countries. Theoretically, of course, that is true. It is not only true now, today; it was true before the Second World War. And it was more or less realized by the leaders of the capitalist countries. Yet the Second World War began not as a war with the U.S.S.R., but as a war between capitalist countries. Why? Firstly, because war with the U.S.S.R., as a socialist land, is more dangerous to capitalism than war between capitalist countries; for whereas war between capitalist countries puts in question only the supremacy of certain capitalist countries over others, war with the U.S.S.R. must certainly put in question the existence of capitalism itself. Secondly, because the capitalists, although they clamour, for "propaganda" purposes, about the aggressiveness of the Soviet Union, do not themselves believe that it is aggressive, because they are aware of the Soviet Union's peaceful policy and know that it will not itself attack capitalist countries..." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch07.htm

E306C894-404E-426C-ADD7-BCC7C492492C.jpeg
 

Quite. The Soviet Union may not have been out-and-out "attack no matter the odds!" warmongers in the vein of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, but they were still aggressive. The main difference was that their aggression was opportunistic. That made them both more cautious and more deterrable, but it didn't make them peaceful.

Then again, I'm 85% sure David T's being rather sarcastic...
 
Quite. The Soviet Union may not have been out-and-out "attack no matter the odds!" warmongers in the vein of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, but they were still aggressive. The main difference was that their aggression was opportunistic. That made them both more cautious and more deterrable, but it didn't make them peaceful.

Then again, I'm 85% sure David T's being rather sarcastic...

How do you know about the sarcasm?
 
Top