Amerika Rodina

First off nice help so far from fellow posters, but I still stuck on trying to figure out what America and Canada looks like after WW2 were USSR is much stronger.


Also I need some help with the armed forces that would be in the fight for WW3 in which USA loses there own country.


LW
 
Actually , even with a Red Europe , the odds are strong that the Soviet Union would STILL stagnante and eventually collapse economically . The main problem was , that the Soviet Economy was basically a national death trap . I suggest that you research on the Soviet Economic position and the problems that started croping out from the 70s till its collapse before you come to the conclusion that the USSR could have conquered all of the US without triggering the ATL equivalent of MAD. Conquering Europe does not handwave the inherent problems within the Communist system , especially gaining a devestated Europe with much of its industries gutted, and with almost no prospects of American financial aid for rebuilding if it went Red.

The Cold War COULD not have been won on military terms without ending in the destruction of BOTH sides . This leaves only Economic supeority as a path to Victory, something that made US victory almost an inevitability in any ATL where the Cold War ends without mushroom clouds all over this planet.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Failure of overlord would be a blow. BUT anyone thinking that it would be more then that are thinking that its the same as Vietnam and the Tet Offensive. For starters, there is a huge difference in the American Society of the late 60's and early seventies vs the American Society of 1944. Adults at that time had memories of the hard times of the Great Depression and the terrible losses of the early war period. We had gotten hardened and tougher for all that; while all too many in the late 60's had known only pretty easy times. We whole heartedly were supporting the war in 1944: because we knew we were under threat and had had no choice; very different from Vietnam. Failure of overlord would NOT be that major of a factor to the US population.
 
Actually , even with a Red Europe , the odds are strong that the Soviet Union would STILL stagnante and eventually collapse economically . The main problem was , that the Soviet Economy was basically a national death trap . I suggest that you research on the Soviet Economic position and the problems that started croping out from the 70s till its collapse before you come to the conclusion that the USSR could have conquered all of the US without triggering the ATL equivalent of MAD. Conquering Europe does not handwave the inherent problems within the Communist system , especially gaining a devestated Europe with much of its industries gutted, and with almost no prospects of American financial aid for rebuilding if it went Red.

The Cold War COULD not have been won on military terms without ending in the destruction of BOTH sides . This leaves only Economic supeority as a path to Victory, something that made US victory almost an inevitability in any ATL where the Cold War ends without mushroom clouds all over this planet.

Oh, lay off all that da commie economy sucks free-markets rule BS. The Soviet economy grew to be the second largest in the world, and over took all others in Europe within a single generation, I concede the planned economy was more suited to mobilizing for war-time & extensive growth rather than intensive growth. Indeed the Soviets were victims of their own success in this area as their rapidly growing economy was more difficult to plan by the 1970’s, but it was never stagnant that was more a false perception than reality. Soviet economic growth had slowed to about 2% by the late Brezhnev era, not good but not horrible either

They never had any recessions either, until Gorby botched the reforms Andropov's more prudently slower paced reforms and anti-corruption drives would’ve yielded much better results, rather than Gorby's bull in a china shop ideas were if somthing didnt work right away he'd try something else rather than show patience or restraint. It'd be interesting to ponder what effect modern IT technology would have for the administration of a planned economy, it’d help speed decision-making and info sharing one of the major Soviet roadblocks.

On topic: A red Germany would be a major game-changer for the Cold War, if Germany is red then so is Denmark, Austria & Low Countries France too may see some Red Army units cross the Rhine.

After all if Overlord failed badly, the only Western allied presence in Europe, would be in Italy, it would takes month’s/a year to plan another major landing if they even made another attempt. So if the Soviets beat the Germans without another major allied front. (Italy was a side-show) they could claim to have beaten the Germans singled-handed with the US & Britain relegated to a support role just like Hitler’s Axis allies. Stalin would have a free hand in any territories the Soviets occupy take since he would be the stand alone victor in Europe.

Evey nation that turns red in Europe is one less market for the US and another vassel for the Soviets to trade with Germany in particular would be useful, because of their massive industrial production they'd needto trade indusial goods for Soviet oil, gas & other raw materials. (Kind of like German-Russian trade today)

You'd see a much stronger USSR and a rump NATO if the allies even get to France first, difficult to predict entirely what would happen next, but neither the Cold War or the USSR would be the same.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem here is that the basic founding premise is fatally flawed. The United States wasn't going to tuck it's tail between its legs and go yipping home if Overlord failed totally. Ike would have been axed (probably without good reason) but the United States wasn't going anywhere.

The U.S. didn't fold and leave the table after Pearl Harbor, after losing SEVENTY THOUSAND men in the Philippines, after Guam, Wake, Kasserine Pass, Anzio or any of the other disasters during the war.

The likelyhood of the entire landing failing is also vanishingly small. The Allies had total control of the air, to a degree that was (and still is) stunning. On D-Day the Luftwaffe managed to have 300 or so sorties against the beachhead (as a comparitive, the Allies put 171 SQUADRONS of fighters up that day), the Allies had almost 15,000 COMBAT sorties on 6/6/44. That sort of difference is unrecoverable.

While the popular vision of D-Day is that the Germans almost managed to defeat the landings by holding Omaha, that is all it is, a popular vision, one that movies like to play up. It is also a misconception. Had the Germans managed to totally destroy the Omaha landing force, that would have cost the U.S. Army TWO divisions, out of ONE HUNDRED, (in any case, Omaha was secured by 14:00 on D-Day). The absolute "best" possible result the Germans could hope for was an "Anzio light" where the Gold/Juno/Sword and Utah beachheads are contained. Even that is unlikely, again because of the airpower available to the Allies and because of the HUGE amount of manpower the Allies had in England waiting to reinforce the landing forces. Unfortunately for the Germans, unlike Anzio, the terrain surround the beaches in France wasn't comprised of a series of ridges that provided the Heer with perfect locations to site artillery, nor was it at the edge of range for Allied fighters. Allied aircraft had substantial loiter time over the beaches thanks to the proximity of their operating bases and the RAF Bomber Command and 8th Air Force had well over 2,000 bomber within 300 miles of Utah, the most distant of the beachheads from the bomber bases. At best, the Germans would have been forced to concentrate their forces in the open to contain the beachheads subjecting them to murderous bombing and strafing with inevitible results.

Normandy wasn't the only place to attack France, as the allies demonstrated diring Operation Dragon. Normandy was a very good place, because the Germans didn't expect the attack to fall there, but even after a repulse there the Allies had the forces and logistical ability to go again. This also mitigages against the forst part of the initial scenario.

However, let us leave those three significant items aside and assume that the Germans hold France until the Soviets are entering East Prussia in force (February of 1942). At that point, even Hitler will pull forces out of France to stop the Red Army. Guess what happends then? The Million or so Allied troops in the UK roll over the dimished German Defenses and make it to the Rhine in around three months. In this scenario, the Allies meet the Red Army at the Rhine instead of the Elbe. This will have huge butterflies, but nowhere near the size or number needed to make the scenario fly.

Now, lets go a step further and imagine that, against all logic and pre-war planning and all agreements made during the war, the allies don't make a second attempt at France. Vanishingly likely, but WTH?

No second invasion instead frees up additional forces for use in the Pacific, not that any were needed IOTL. The U.S. takes out its frustration from the ETO on the Japanese, crushing them like an empty beer can (wait, they did that anyway... oh well) The Americans come home with Japan's scalp and count coup, having nuked the Japanese (and, depending on how the war in the ETO went, maybe a couple German cities as well) and obtaining unconditional surrender. The U.S. military comes back from the war, the most powerful military force on Earth with a massive victory to take the sting out of Normandy. It is now confronted by the USSR which is feeling it oats, so the U.S... Disarms? Hardly.

In this scenario the U.S. puts even more emphasis on Naval and Air Forces, perhaps not even demobilizing the Mighty 8th since they are facing the much stronger Red Army across the Channel, which is the front line in America's Atlantic Wall. So the U.S. has MORE bombers, a BIGGER :eek: navy, and is even more paraniod about Ivan. Not going to get an invasion of the U.S. under those Conditions either.

Hmm..., How about if we go WAY into the unlikely part of the pool? Japan WINS in the Pacific (yes, I know I've got two dozen recent posts demonstrating why this is impossible, still...)

Now the U.S. has enemies on both sides, who have demonstrated that they are expansionist and angry at the U.S. So now, as a result, America... disarms. Yea. Not gonna happen.

Now you have an America that does a reasonable imitation of Switzerland or Israel, except with a Thousand ship navy and Ford, GM & Chrysler still building three tanks or planes for every car or truck. Turning itself (and probably Canada, who will be as freaked out as the U.S. in this scenario) into a hedgehog with a clearly stated First Use policy and a paranoia about Communists and Orientals (they're all the same, don'tcha know) that knows no bounds. The best literary example of this version of America? The Terran Federation from Starship Troopers where the military is a central part of everyday life. Now, the USSR decides to attack this bunch of heavily armed paranoids? Always knew those Commies were insane.

So, exactly where, in any of these scenarios, does the U.S. return to 1927 attitudes? Exactly nowhere.


One last point:

I just wanted a Canada that didn't have it's armed, air and naval forces cut to bit after WW2 due to the Americans

The United Stated didn't force, or even ask, Canada to disarm. Canada is, to be brutally honest, along with the Atlantic and the Pacific America cushion against attack. Canada is also American largest trading partner and a steady respected friend and ally (longest unfortified border on Earth, remember?). The best thing for America is a STRONG Canada.

Canada disarmed because CANADIANS wanted to disarm. They elected politicians who made that a priority, who made a series of decisions that created current Canada with the social benefits it affords to residents. Canada's population enjoys a number of Government provided programs, perhaps most famously Universal Health Care, that do not exist in the U.S. which absorbs, by itself, 7% of Canada's budget, with social support of other sorts equaling another 7%.

The U.S. put almost 25% of its total budget into defense. This from an economy that draws from a population of 300 million, while Canada draws from 11% of that number. As near as I can figure, the U.S spends as much in CURRENT military spending, not including the Iraq warm as the TOTAL Canadian government budget for 2005-2008.

Weapons are expensive. Not every country is willing, or able to spend enough to support a major force.
 
I just wanted the Canadian armed, naval and airforces to still be fighting the Red Russian forces with whats left of the Americans. Alaska is a war zone and each side is in treaches and the pipeline is cut, Fuel is hard to come by for the normal people in occupated USA so is food as well.

In this setting USSR and there client states are more unighted in this world then they are in they were in our world, also Warsaw Pact is alot stronger then Nato in this world as well.


LW
 

Baskilisk

Banned
For Canada to have anything like the armed forces of the United States strains even Red Alert 2-level ASB. Now, it is entirely possible for the Canadians to have a relatively formidable military- but likely in coordination with that of the Americans. Maybe the Arrow would end up being a joint-project of the two nations and adopted as the primary North American fighter jet.

I do think it would be interesting to posit a scneario where the Soviet Union is a little stronger, the US perhaps a little weaker, and the idea of a more highly militarized Canada is interesting. But in rational countries, peacetime military is hardly ever above 2% of population. Canada's population was 12 million, that gives you about a quarter million to play around with. The best-case scenario is that you develop a high-quality Canadian military, geared towards cold-weather warfare- an 'IDF of the North', if you will. Despite our small numbers and frequent budgetary issues, the fighting quality of the Canadian military has usually been pretty high.
Militaries of the Anglo-Saxon countries are comparitively good. With Canada you have American and British influences, the best of both worlds.
 
So here is the layout of the USSR and there client states,

USSR and there eastern European states which inclued Germany,

China
Vietnam
Korea are all red and take there orders from Mosscow

Now the USA currently has there armed and naval forces at WW2 level they never got any bigger, how ever Canada due to success in WW2 there armed forces, naval and airforce came out without any tarnish to there name.


The only thing got for a guide or source books is Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, and the movie Red Dawn.

Now I need to get my hands of the Price Freedom RPG series, yes I know it's old and out of date.

So I need help on any type of source books that I should get?,

LW
 

burmafrd

Banned
You do realize how massive the US forces were at the end of WW2?
14 million total under arms; 100 divisions and a 1000 ship fleet added to around 20,000 top of the line aircraft.
 
The only thing got for a guide or source books is Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, and the movie Red Dawn.

Now I need to get my hands of the Price Freedom RPG series, yes I know it's old and out of date.

So I need help on any type of source books that I should get?,

LW

Those first two 'sources' don't count. Those are fiction, and you need some non-fictional grounding. Try the Osprey books for some basic info.
And what's with the RPG? That doesn't count as a source either.

And Korea's not all red. South Korea.
 
I mean in this world all Vitenam and Korea is Red, America lost both of fights in that is this world.

I need them Red and client states of USSR like China, in this world there was no split between USSR and China.


Also Germany is united and under Red control too, this all hinges on the fact that USSR got full control of German states due to the fact that they developed the A Bomb first.

To be trueful I don't know how along the USSR was in developing the A Bomb on there own, I know that they stole most of the knowhow from the Americans.

LW
 
First off again thanks for all the help so far, but I would like to remind some people that they pointed out that USA had a large army but like in late 1980's mostly they were green. Green troops as we know experince of Green troops in battle is very limited too shooting untill they feel the bullets bite then they run for there lives, also the home guard the weekend wariors usally as I understand the ones left behind wouldn't stand up to seasoned USSR troops. Now as stated before if Canada had at home a large group of seasoned troops to guard the homeland,


This setting all hinges on the fact that the USSR got a larger postion after in WW2 then the USA which means Berlin, still need some help though happy for the help so far.

LW
 
Amerika Rodina is simple started with idea what if USA was invaded the USSR and there Red ally states, and I still need help.


Now the subject of Canada and USA strength, yes America has a big army but most it is green troops specialy during the 1980's. Now Canada on the other hand would had well trained troops and well equiped not like it's currently, yes Canada stood down in our world due to are leaders listening to advice from America this how the Arrow was scraped.

Now in this alt history setting, Canada has keep on alert due to the presance of USSR in artic region hence why there are Canadian forces up there as well, and why Canadians also has a strong naval presance in oceans around Canada to check USSR subs spying. The America dispight failing in Operation Overlord still won WW2 but the Reds won full control of Germany which as some have pointed out would tip the balance in Europe after the war,

The cold war was fought between Warsaw Pact and Nato most of frostly battles and shadow moves were won by Warsaw pact, which lead to the invasion of America.

LW
 

burmafrd

Banned
There is a reason this thread is being ignored. You ignore all reality and refuse to admit this is ASB.
 

Faraday Cage

Alternate history is science fiction. It's alright to play fast and loose with reality when it makes a good story. Some people completely miss the point of alt history which is to have fun with a "what if?". It's only ASB if it has magic or psychic powers or alien interventions into Victorian politics and even that is a good side of Alt History too, not some dingy subsidiary of ill-repute.

It's ok to have "style first" timelines.
 
Here are some PODs that should get things moving in the direction:

* According to the Soviet economists of the period, the United States and Western Europe was supposed to enter another depression in c.1953. With the absence of the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods Conference, the economic situation would have gotten pretty bad...

* Check out the ATL for Zero Killer (Dark Horse Comics), Issue #4 comes out 8/19, which can be found at:

http://www.zerokiller.com/timeline/index.html

* Also check out the "America First " movement at :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(1944)

As such, I have some of the more isolationist American leaders of OTL. Hopefully this can serve as a quick outline of the leaders that allowed the precursors of Russian invasion to take place:

1944: President Charles Lindbergh (R-MI); Vice-President Wendell Wilkie (R-NY)

1952- President Douglas Macarthur (D-WI); Vice-President Harry F. Byrd (D-VA)

1960- President Lawrence Joseph Sarsfield Daly (R-IL)

1968: President George C. Wallace (D-Ala.); Vice-President Curtis Le May (D-OH)

1980: President John R. Rarick (D-LA); Vice-President; Thomas J. Anderson (D-TN)

1992: President Pat Buchanan (R-VA); Vice-President Pat Robertson
or
1992: President H. Ross Perot (D-TX); Vice-President James Stockdale

1996: President Ralph Forbes (R-Ark.); Vice-President Andy Anderson
 
Top