Consequences of a total Soviet victory in a 1948 World War III

[paulpskordilis]

"But, a Russian historian speculated, what would have happened if U.S. personnel on such a convoy failed to maintain their self-control and opened fire? And even before that could occur, what would junior Soviet officers do when they saw Western tanks and armored cars rolling across their holy border? Americans were attacking Russians, they would think--they would not wait for the invaders to shoot but would open fire themselves. According to Ivanov, the third possibility--'that the Soviet leadership would have yielded to the U.S. pressure and let the convoy go free'--was ruled out in the first discussions of the situation by the Soviet General Staff and the occupation forces staff. The sending of a convoy would have led to unpredictable results, most likely including armed conflict. What the Soviet leaders could surmise but did not know definitely was that General Bradley took a similar view. He and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs had quite effectively summed up the possibilities in a top-secret memorandum to the secretary of defense: 'Soviet passive resistance, such as road and bridge obstruction or destruction, could make the armed convoy method abortive, while Soviet interference by military action, whether simply for prevention or deliberately as a result of war decision, would not only make the convoy method abortive but would shift the stage from one of local friction to one of major war involvement.'"

OK, it's not likely, but suppose Truman had taken Clay's and Murphy's advice instead of Bradley's and Bohlen's? FWIW, many years later, Andrei Gromyko, in answer to a question by Henry Kissinger, said "that Stalin was determined to avoid a general war, but that he would have resisted a Western attempt to relieve Berlin." https://books.google.com/books?id=DHoQ5GJ2H6YC&pg=PA89

From an old post a few years back. POD: Truman follows the Clay-Murphy plan to send armed convoys to re-supply Berlin. They are promptly destroyed by the Soviets, and mass public outrage against a 'Soviet sneak attack' on 'humanitarian missions to feed starving civilians' ensues, unintentionally escalating the conflict further. Given the massive disparity between Soviet and Western ground forces in Europe, the Red Army overruns continental Europe before winter and to compound the disastrous military situation, Truman and Attlee mistakenly declare war on Tito as well (not that it matters, since Stalin overruns Iberia in a matter of weeks and has Franco shot).

Secondly, a Taft-Stassen alliance defeats Dewey at the GOP convention and defeats Truman(whose name is irrevocably soiled by military catastrophe) in a landslide in November. Upon his inauguration in January, Taft immediately sues for peace, Attlee and Hirohito(who is terrified of Soviet bombers reducing Japan to rubble from occupied South Korea) soon following suit. Following a Third(!) Armistice at Compiegne, the USA, traumatized by the scale of its military defeat, totally disengages from Britain and Japan and re-engages in a new period of isolationism.

 

[Beatriz]

What happens to the Middle East or Southeast Asia?

 

[paulpskordilis]

What happens to the Middle East or Southeast Asia?

Mao and Ho are competing for influence in Southeast Asia.

As for the Middle East, the Soviet Army has shot the pro-British royal families and now props up 'people's republics' in the area on bayonets. Given Stalin's anti-semitism, Israel doesn't exist: Palestine Mandate has been divided among its Arab neighbours.

 

[Beatriz]

B_Munro’s Amerika

https://www.deviantart.com/quantumbranching/art/AMERIKA-1997-289900679

 

[paulpskordilis]

B_Munro’s Amerika

https://www.deviantart.com/quantumbranching/art/AMERIKA-1997-289900679

In my scenario, the Soviets negotiate a peace with, not conquer, the US.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

In my scenario, the Soviets negotiate a peace with, not conquer, the US.

I'm thinking that she was making a joke lol

 

[Sam R.]

The CPSU(b) faces a revolt from the French, Italian and Yugoslav parties which is resolved by negotiation. Soviet capitalism "humanises" towards consumer goods under worker revolt. This results in time-and-motion under coercive consent local management, effectively: post-fordism.

 

[RedSword12]

Where are the nukes? I get that deploying them was a lot harder than people think in that time, but where do they factor in this scenario?

 

[Cudymcar]

Given Stalin's anti-semitism, Israel doesn't exist

Stalin was a Zionist.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

Stalin was a Zionist.

What... I mean, yes, he said he was and behaved so to the extent he could politically manipulate things, but if you're not aware you need to look into his record on actually loving the Jews >_>

 

[paulpskordilis]

The CPSU(b) faces a revolt from the French, Italian and Yugoslav parties which is resolved by negotiation. Soviet capitalism "humanises" towards consumer goods under worker revolt. This results in time-and-motion under coercive consent local management, effectively: post-fordism.

Thorez and Togliatti are entirely dependent on Red Army bayonets to stay in power here - they are in no position to contradict Stalin on anything.

Where are the nukes? I get that deploying them was a lot harder than people think in that time, but where do they factor in this scenario?

The nukes would have taken up until late 1949 to deploy. In any case, the new isolationist Republican adminstration under Taft publicly blames Truman for starting WWIII with his 'armed convoys' idea and decides to negotiate a peace with Stalin.

Stalin was a Zionist.

As the 1953 planned ethnic cleansing of the Jews shows, he was quick to change his mind on such 'national matters'.

 

[lukedalton]

Where are the nukes? I get that deploying them was a lot harder than people think in that time, but where do they factor in this scenario?

They cannot be deployed otherwise the scenario go down the toilet...not that's credible from the beginning

 

[paulpskordilis]

They cannot be deployed otherwise the scenario go down the toilet...not that's credible from the beginning

The USAF was not ready for a strategic nuclear bombardment of the Soviet Union until the end of 1949. In light of this military reality, Taft blames Truman for starting a World War III which the US is losing and makes peace with Stalin.

 

[CHKeeley]

Given the massive disparity between Soviet and Western ground forces in Europe, the Red Army overruns continental Europe before winter

Disparities existed, but no “massive disparity” that would allow the Red Army to roll half a continent in six months. Considering what an allied coalition could put into Korea on relatively short notice, it’s extremely unlikely that the anti-Soviet coalition can field no significant military force to halt the Red Army anywhere.

Truman and Attlee mistakenly declare war on Tito as well (not that it matters, since Stalin overruns Iberia in a matter of weeks and has Franco shot).

Mistakenly?

Following a Third(!) Armistice at Compiegne, the USA, traumatized by the scale of its military defeat, totally disengages from Britain and Japan and re-engages in a new period of isolationism.

“America gets scared and goes isolationist” is pretty unrealistic. When the United States suffered defeats in the Cold War, it drove paranoia and obsessive interventionism higher, not lower. The Republican Party would be absolute toast with voters if it argued on a platform that the United States should “surrender” and go back into its shell. A far worse Red Scare means that politics will be obsessed with “red influence” and by advocating a defeatist-isolationist position, the GOP would effectively be opening itself up to plausible attacks that it’s the party of Soviet fellow travelers who want to let the commies rule the world. Historically, we saw the Republican Party shed its isolationism as a result of the threat of the Cold War. In a scenario where the sense of emergency and danger is ratcheted up to ten, I can’t see any plausible situation in which a significant threat lead to isolationism - we would see radical militarism and extremist anti-communism instead. Think Dr Strangelove, but General Ripper’s ideas are popular in the War Room and his initiative is commended.

Given Stalin's anti-semitism, Israel doesn't exist: Palestine Mandate has been divided among its Arab neighbours.

Just as in OTL, Stalin and the Party’s line on Zionism will be determined by the political usefulness of encouraging a Zionist nation as a tool to undermine their opponents. IOTL, the USSR was quick to reverse longstanding anti-Zionist policy and recognize the country because its role as a potentially-socialist and anti-British nation was recognized. If Jewish settlers during the Third World War align themselves against the colonial governments in the Middle East, then a Zionist nation in some shape or form could be on the table.

Stalin was a Zionist.

That’s a pretty big stretch. The Party’s line on Zionism for the vast majority of Stalin’s tenure was that Zionism was an anti-internationalist ethnic chauvinism which was closely allied with the forces of capitalist imperialism. This change for a brief period around the founding of the state of Israel due to hopes of a leftward alignment of Israel, but old attitudes returned when this didn’t pan out. Hard to see that as Zionism.

Thorez and Togliatti are entirely dependent on Red Army bayonets to stay in power here - they are in no position to contradict Stalin on anything.

The Communist Party of Hungary and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were also “dependent on Red Army bayonets” and yet still had party-led unorthodoxies that resulted in military action. Same goes for Romania and Poland that resulted in negotiation and acquiescence. East German workers revolted in 1953 as well. Not hard to see this happened in western communist parties at all given how massively overstretched the Red Army is going to be trying to occupy all that real estate.

 

[lukedalton]

The USAF was not ready for a strategic nuclear bombardment of the Soviet Union until the end of 1949. In light of this military reality, Taft blames Truman for starting a World War III which the US is losing and makes peace with Stalin.

Sorry but if the military sitaution is so dire well not only they will speed things up but they will begin to use the atomic bomb on eastern europe and frankly the red army and the URSS itself is not in that good shape to simply walk over the rest of Europe (not even counting other front) and finally the entire premise basically is the same of the Japanese government before Pearl Harbour aka that the 'weak' democracy will simply roll over if they get an enough hard beating...and look at how it ended.

 

[lukedalton]

The Communist Party of Hungary and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were also “dependent on Red Army bayonets” and yet still had party-led unorthodoxies that resulted in military action. Same goes for Romania and Poland that resulted in negotiation and acquiescence. East German workers revolted in 1953 as well. Not hard to see this happened in western communist parties at all given how massively overstretched the Red Army is going to be trying to occupy all that real estate.

Not considering that in 1948 the red army still had not fully pacified the recent conquest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_insurgencies_in_Central_and_Eastern_Europe
a soviet army that spread all over Europe and that had suffered enough casualities will hardly have the capacity to control so much territory

 

[paulpskordilis]

Sorry but if the military sitaution is so dire well not only they will speed things up but they will begin to use the atomic bomb on eastern europe and frankly the red army and the URSS itself is not in that good shape to simply walk over the rest of Europe (not even counting other front) and finally the entire premise basically is the same of the Japanese government before Pearl Harbour aka that the 'weak' democracy will simply roll over if they get an enough hard beating...and look at how it ended.

The atomic bomb is not ready for delivery on Eastern Europe until the ending of 1949, considering the abysmal state of the USAF.

Not considering that in 1948 the red army still had not fully pacified the recent conquest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_insurgencies_in_Central_and_Eastern_Europe
a soviet army that spread all over Europe and that had suffered enough casualities will hardly have the capacity to control so much territory

The IJA overran Southeast Asia in a matter of months despite being simultaneously engaged in a full-scale war in China.

 

[lukedalton]

The atomic bomb is not ready for delivery on Eastern Europe until the ending of 1949, considering the abysmal state of the USAF.

The IJA overran Southeast Asia in a matter of months despite being simultaneously engaged in a full-scale war in China.

The URSS has been devastated by the war, they had their last big famine in 1946 and they are still fighting insurgent in eastern Europe and southeast asia was a simply walk in the park compared to going trough the terrain of Turkey and Afghanistan (not considering how military negletted was the zone by the Allies as they concentrated not only the great part of their assets but also their best troops and equipment in North Africa). In poor words they are not in a very good shape for any conflict against a peer.
Regarding the USAF, well it's a very well know fact that the USA don't have the capacity to quickly step up their industrial capacity and to quickly increase their military capacity/s

 

[paulpskordilis]

Disparities existed, but no “massive disparity” that would allow the Red Army to roll half a continent in six months. Considering what an allied coalition could put into Korea on relatively short notice, it’s extremely unlikely that the anti-Soviet coalition can field no significant military force to halt the Red Army anywhere.

Courtesy of Truman, the US Armed Forces in Europe(including Britain) had largely been gutted after WWII. The aerial capability to deliver the nukes or amphibious lift capability to attempt a D-Day simply didn't exist.

Mistakenly?

In 1948, as far as the Allies were concerned, Tito was a Soviet stooge. The split came later that year.

“America gets scared and goes isolationist” is pretty unrealistic. When the United States suffered defeats in the Cold War, it drove paranoia and obsessive interventionism higher, not lower. The Republican Party would be absolute toast with voters if it argued on a platform that the United States should “surrender” and go back into its shell. A far worse Red Scare means that politics will be obsessed with “red influence” and by advocating a defeatist-isolationist position, the GOP would effectively be opening itself up to plausible attacks that it’s the party of Soviet fellow travelers who want to let the commies rule the world. Historically, we saw the Republican Party shed its isolationism as a result of the threat of the Cold War. In a scenario where the sense of emergency and danger is ratcheted up to ten, I can’t see any plausible situation in which a significant threat lead to isolationism - we would see radical militarism and extremist anti-communism instead. Think Dr Strangelove, but General Ripper’s ideas are popular in the War Room and his initiative is commended.

Why? A Central Powers victory in World War I would have further strengthened, not weakened, American isolationism.

Just as in OTL, Stalin and the Party’s line on Zionism will be determined by the political usefulness of encouraging a Zionist nation as a tool to undermine their opponents. IOTL, the USSR was quick to reverse longstanding anti-Zionist policy and recognize the country because its role as a potentially-socialist and anti-British nation was recognized. If Jewish settlers during the Third World War align themselves against the colonial governments in the Middle East, then a Zionist nation in some shape or form could be on the table.

That’s a pretty big stretch. The Party’s line on Zionism for the vast majority of Stalin’s tenure was that Zionism was an anti-internationalist ethnic chauvinism which was closely allied with the forces of capitalist imperialism. This change for a brief period around the founding of the state of Israel due to hopes of a leftward alignment of Israel, but old attitudes returned when this didn’t pan out. Hard to see that as Zionism.

With the Middle East now firmly in the Soviet sphere, the Arabs would have accepted an exclusively ethnic Jewish state when hell freezed over. Stalin is far more likely to go for a Communist puppet state in the Palestine Mandate including both Jews and Arabs: 'ethnic nationalism is reactionary, comrade...' At least initially.

The Communist Party of Hungary and the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia were also “dependent on Red Army bayonets” and yet still had party-led unorthodoxies that resulted in military action. Same goes for Romania and Poland that resulted in negotiation and acquiescence. East German workers revolted in 1953 as well. Not hard to see this happened in western communist parties at all given how massively overstretched the Red Army is going to be trying to occupy all that real estate.

Note how literally nobody(yes, including Mao) thought it was a good idea to cross the party line while Stalin was still alive.

 

[paulpskordilis]

The URSS has been devastated by the war, they had their last big famine in 1946 and they are still fighting insurgent in eastern Europe and southeast asia was a simply walk in the park compared to going trough the terrain of Turkey and Afghanistan (not considering how military negletted was the zone by the Allies as they concentrated not only the great part of their assets but also their best troops and equipment in North Africa). In poor words they are not in a very good shape for any conflict against a peer.
Regarding the USAF, well it's a very well know fact that the USA don't have the capacity to quickly step up their industrial capacity and to quickly increase their military capacity/s

Afghanistan is going to, once again, declare its neutrality in World War III, or declare free passage for Soviet troops without resistance if there is a Stalin-Nehru alliance. As for Turkey, Stalin will be discussing a new name for Istanbul in a matter of weeks. Stalinodar, anyone?