Discussion: issues and outcome of Euro-Soviet WWII

Most likely outcome of Euro-Soviet WWII

  • Total European victory

    Votes: 38 29.0%
  • Partial European victory

    Votes: 60 45.8%
  • Draw

    Votes: 6 4.6%
  • Partial Soviet victory

    Votes: 15 11.5%
  • Total Soviet victory

    Votes: 10 7.6%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 2 1.5%

  • Total voters
    131
In theory yes and if they keep together even in OTL thing will gone differently, but in reality after the invasion of Czech and the Russian ultimatum at Romania, well the attitude was everyone for itself, even if logic dictate that they must stay together.
Yes but we are talking about a scenario where the ocuppation to Czechia has been reversed and the dismemberment of Romania (which is when these alliances effectively dead iOTL) didn't happen yet. Most importantly, France, who was the main sponsor of these alliances, is still in good shape. In OTL the Romanians were in a state of shock after the fall of France when the Soviet ultimatum came, and were unable to react effectively. In TTL, the international situation it much more favourable.

Because it will not be an easier fight, the only thing that Turkey can do is try to attack the dodecanese, but their armed forces were in a state even worse of the italian in term of modern equipment. And Italy had demostrated that in a modern war courage only can't solve much, the Marina Militare can make piece of the Turkish navy and the troops must pass Greece to help Yugoslavia...and frankly it was very axis friendly
I don't see why it wouldn't be an easier fight. Italy might be a great power but not in the same league as Germany or the SU. Remember, Greece was beating it in OTL. Besides, the main objective of Turkey and the other balkan countries woul not be to fight Italy directly but to take out it's smaller allies. Turkey might like to recover the Dodecanese but if it isn't possible, it can just focus on Bulgaria instead. And it's not like Italy can do much against Turkey either, it would just get it's own version of Gallipolli.
As for Turkey of Greece being "axis friendly" in OTL, this is irellevant as we are talking about a timeline where the axis is stillborn. The enemy is just Italy and some small countries allied to it.
Greece can be probably buy out with a non aggression pact and with stopping to prop up albanian irredentism on the region (a secondary objective as the yugoslavia territory were more important). In OTL the Greece government had done anything to not provoke Italy (or other power) even closing her eyes and not protest when a 'unknow' submarine torpedoed a Greece Navy cruiser, so it reasonable predict that metaxas will try to stay out of this ufficialy and speed up the construction of the metaxas line.
At this point, I don't think a non-agression pact with a fascist dictator would be worth more than the paper it was written on. Besides, Greece had it's own terittorial ambitions in southern Albania.
And in OTL, the greeks tried to keep a low profile because Italy was allready officially allied to Germany and the Axis had taken out France. In this TL, the allies are preparing to sign a treaty with Germany and there is even the possibility that they will send help (after all, they were willing to help Finland).

Romania is basically surrounded and can she divert more resource and troops with the big giant at her door? For the moment is occupied but soon will be again free so the romanian government must take in consideration this.
Romania is still going to be surrounded when the war is over, and with less allies. They have a situation where all it's hostile neighbours are embroiled in wars of their own, so why not take advantage of it. Again, the main objective would be to take out Hungary and Bulgaria, and with the right strategy, it might be able to defeat them both. Italy can't really come to the aid of it's allies, while the Soviet union is busy in Finland and doing a job just as poor as in OTL.


Or to be beaten and loose more territory. As said earlier here Italy can put all his force and resource in the fight, and even if not in league with France and Uk or Germany are a lot more than the entente. So it's more probably that the other nations will begin to rearm and speed up the construction of border fortifications but his not a given that they will go to the side of Yugoslavia (who it's even enough internally divided to be hampered in his war effort), even if it will be a logical but not easy choice
Hiding behind border fortifications wasn't really feasible for these countries for geographical reasons. And I have shown above tha arguments for sticking toghther, especially in a timeline where people asre much more inclined towards cooperation than in OTL.
 
Maybe I would rewrite the progress of European integration at a slower pace if I ever made a revised version, maybe I would not. It is definitely possible I was too optimistic on this issue when I wrote the original version, due to my Eurofederalist bias. It is something I had already noticed and I recognize the issue may have merit but I am uncertain whether it would warrant a revised version of the TL. In all likelihood, however, it is not as outlandish as you make it seem. IMO the justification for TTL European powers to try and establish solid reconciliation and concoct some serious amount of military and economic cooperation in the face of a rising Soviet threat is reasonable (the economic cooperation part to make the burden of rearmament more bearable). Please be mindful that I have to deem your own judgement of European powers' reciprocal attitudes in the 1930s based on deeply questionable and flawed assumptions, and so I'm forced to take your opinion on this subject with serious reservations.
Maybe you don't have to rewrite the TL. But when the Soviet invasion comes, you could show that a lot of cooperation between the European countries existed just on paper because they were not willing or capable to fully implement the provisions of their alliances. There would be differences of equipment (causing logistics issues), differences of doctrine, and slightly different agendas for everyone, which would make for a more interesting and complex TL.
Just think at the trouble the allies had at working together in 1940 (and the axis throughout the entire war) to see where my skepticism came from.
 
Except that there were indeed forward thinkers in France, De Gaulle for one, who were very much interested in modernizing both the French military and the sense of tactics.

France was in the process of a major expansion of the fleet, with several new battleships capable of facing the Bismark and Tirpitz and superior to everything else Italy or Germany had, and of the army with no less than 8 armored divisions to be fielded in addition to the tanks already in service.

Neither of those programs sounds like France was unopen to changes.
 
Yes but we are talking about a scenario where the ocuppation to Czechia has been reversed and the dismemberment of Romania (which is when these alliances effectively dead iOTL) didn't happen yet. Most importantly, France, who was the main sponsor of these alliances, is still in good shape. In OTL the Romanians were in a state of shock after the fall of France when the Soviet ultimatum came, and were unable to react effectively. In TTL, the international situation it much more favourable.

France and UK had sell Czech and Ethiopia the will to attack it's not a given, expecially if Benny can use a good casus belli or Yugoslavia had a lot of internal strife and the attack is an excuse for stabilize thing.

I don't see why it wouldn't be an easier fight. Italy might be a great power but not in the same league as Germany or the SU. Remember, Greece was beating it in OTL. Besides, the main objective of Turkey and the other balkan countries woul not be to fight Italy directly but to take out it's smaller allies. Turkey might like to recover the Dodecanese but if it isn't possible, it can just focus on Bulgaria instead. And it's not like Italy can do much against Turkey either, it would just get it's own version of Gallipolli.
As for Turkey of Greece being "axis friendly" in OTL, this is irellevant as we are talking about a timeline where the axis is stillborn. The enemy is just Italy and some small countries allied to it.

Italy can focus all his attention on Yugoslavia and later on the rest, no Africa, no Battle of Britain, no other problem, so unlike OTL the best troops like the Ariete are not in Lybia but here. Hungary and Bulgaria were in in phase of rearming so they are not defensless, Yugoslavia is internally weak and Romania must watch her back with the URSS. Turkey for now is not in the shape of attacking anyone and frankly Italy can attack coast cities with the navy, disrupt commercial line and bombard internal cities and can do the same thing to Greece as there is no need to cover other theatre of war. Italy is not in the same league of the other Great powers, but nevertheless was perceveid as one, and so the other nation will had some pause before engage her, and if she can pull all her weight against the little entente and with the help of some ally like Hungary and Bulgaria the prospect for the other balcanic states are not very good. I don't say that will be easy or that after this war Italy will not be exausted, just that Yugoslavia even with Turkey, Greece and Romania help is a very approchable target

At this point, I don't think a non-agression pact with a fascist dictator would be worth more than the paper it was written on. Besides, Greece had it's own terittorial ambitions in southern Albania.
And in OTL, the greeks tried to keep a low profile because Italy was allready officially allied to Germany and the Axis had taken out France. In this TL, the allies are preparing to sign a treaty with Germany and there is even the possibility that they will send help (after all, they were willing to help Finland).

A possibility is not an assurance, somebody can thing that the Allies don't want risk another war after just signed a treaty for some little nation.

Romania is still going to be surrounded when the war is over, and with less allies. They have a situation where all it's hostile neighbours are embroiled in wars of their own, so why not take advantage of it. Again, the main objective would be to take out Hungary and Bulgaria, and with the right strategy, it might be able to defeat them both. Italy can't really come to the aid of it's allies, while the Soviet union is busy in Finland and doing a job just as poor as in OTL.

URSS will not be busy in Finland forever, everybody knows it and Romania it's willing to risk to fight a war with two nation plus Italy (who by the way after a while can help, frankly i don't think that Yugoslavia can figth for much so soon she will be on the Romania border), spend men and resource and after be ready to face Russia? It's not a easy decision

Hiding behind border fortifications wasn't really feasible for these countries for geographical reasons. And I have shown above tha arguments for sticking toghther, especially in a timeline where people asre much more inclined towards cooperation than in OTL.

More inclined is one thing, be ready to fight a official great power is another. The nation of the little entente will probably try to take time and one thing the Yugoslavia as not is time
 

Eurofed

Banned
Maybe you don't have to rewrite the TL. But when the Soviet invasion comes, you could show that a lot of cooperation between the European countries existed just on paper because they were not willing or capable to fully implement the provisions of their alliances. There would be differences of equipment (causing logistics issues), differences of doctrine, and slightly different agendas for everyone, which would make for a more interesting and complex TL.
Just think at the trouble the allies had at working together in 1940 (and the axis throughout the entire war) to see where my skepticism came from.

Well, if anything I would deem a much more believable course to rewrite or Errata the TL to slow the course of pre-war European cooperation significantly and have a sizable chunk of the original pre-war cooperation accords happen during the conflict, as a result of wartime pressures. But once the war starts, I wholly expect wartime cooperation between the European powers to be similar to the OTL Allies in extent and effectiveness. Differences of equipment, doctrine, and agendas are going to be largely smoothed out reasonably quickly, and ideologically the distance between the conservative wartime democracies of Britain and France, Fascist Italy, and TTL post-Nazi Germany is going to be significantly narrower than between the Western Allies and Stalinist Russia IOTL. Of course, we are going to see at least the same degree of strategic quarrels that the OTL Western Allies experienced.
 
Last edited:
Only likely way Stalin could overrunes the whole of continental europe, which is quiet different from the Chinese situation, is if the european powers attempts to drive into the Soviet-Union itself. That would involve Mao and the Euro forces would basically run out of soldiers, leaving continental europe defenceless.

Stalin would not want to overrune continental europe, because the center of power would shift westard after a while.



Without Fall of France and BoB, decolonization is going to be bloody, if it is allowed to happens at all.

Very possible London and Paris sustaining the occupation of their colonies (at least the ones neither Stalin nor Mao claimed) with Japanese, German, Spanish and Italian troops (along with free use of chemical weapons) in exchange for raw materials to keep their economies running. ITTL, may I suggest that the equivalent word for racisme (of the more radical kind) is not nazi but colonialist ?


France was in the process of a major expansion of the fleet, with several new battleships capable of facing the Bismark and Tirpitz and superior to everything else Italy or Germany had, and of the army with no less than 8 armored divisions to be fielded in addition to the tanks already in service.

Neither of those programs sounds like France was unopen to changes.

Strange thing that. Germany had economical troubles because of massive re-armament, coming recession and all that, yet in 1940 had to invade France because the Anglo-French alliance´s re-arment in ground and air forces was even faster, making their militaries significantly superior to that of Germany by 1941/1942. Now if the building of a hugh ass fleet fleet is added to that, well... :eek:
 
Last edited:
I got a problem with the start of the scenario. Why would France would join a war against the soviet union ? You got a country were a third of the population voted for Soviet or Soviet Friendly parties. A war with them would mean a civil war, and a bad one. If the PoD is before 1933, the commies are certainly still a power in Germany too. And all the diplomatic decision by the UK during the 30s was to keep the country out of a war. It needs an Uberstupid Stalin (as crazy stupid as Hitler) to start a general war.

And for the A-bomb, USSR would get a start, as by 1939, a patent for a Nuclear Power Plant and for a Nuclear Bomb was deposed in France by Frederic Joliot-Curie, a commie (after the war he was the president of the World Peace Council, a pro-soviet organization, was awarded the Stalin Price for Peace...) So, do you really think he would stay in a country making war to his ideology ?
 
About this scenario, I'm perplexed about two issues: isn't successful Communist invasion of South East Asia a bridge too far ? The PRC army got its butt on a plate when it tried to invade Vietnam in 1979, I'm doubtful that they could do much better in the 1940s.


Numbers varies, from 9000 KIA and more than 10000 WIA during the war, according to Wei Jingsheng. Recent leak shows that the PLA had 6,954 KIA and 14800 WIA and 238 Prisoners of War in the course of the war. Chinese armies where 200 000, nt 600 000.
To this day, both sides of the conflict describe themselves as the victor, but what the Chinese wanted in this fight, they got it.
Vietnamese attempts at land grabbes was squashed and the Soviet-Union couldn´t do much, short of invading China itself.


Back to WW2.

Malaysia (at least the parts not connected to the mainland),Taïwan, Phillipines (most likely abandonned by the US without Fall of France and Roosevelt loosing the elctions) and Indonesia are pretty much safe, the Japanese navy alone should be able to ensure that. Heck, even the French navy probably could do that.

But on the continent, things would be different, much different. Mao´s focus is on a mainly continental campaign and with Stalin´s support.
The Chinese communists may not have launched kamikaze aircrafts but the Long March is rather telling. Mao managed to reclaime continental China from the nationalists, despite the advantage they had and US tanks the latter received, historically Stalin actually delayed that takeover by threatening military intervention in 1946 because he wanted to avoid tensions.
Then, there is the Korean war, which the Chinese fought with WW2 equippement and while they wheren´t able to push the US out of the asian continent, US wasn´t able to push to the Chinese border either.


In all, the disparity of land forces between the Anglo-French and Chinese supported by the Soviet-Union and some superior equippement is going to be greater than the difference between the Empire of Japan and England during IOTL pacific war. This difference is going to be to Chinese advantage.
Even more important, this advantage will only be growing instead of shrinking, no broken codes (courtesy of Soviet intelligence), the Chinese can sustain losses, the Chinese can afford time. Year after year of warfare would eventually ground down the defenders.

To the Chinese, Vietnam is the neighborhood, to the French, it is on the other side of eurasia.

Japan could, with anglo-french shipping and a technological marshall plan, recover enough to be a significant military power but it would take a while, added to that submarine warfare and fighting in europe would add more delayes. The Anglo-French might be also initally afraid that their colonies might fall under a recovered Japanese sphere of influence.

Evidently, the Anglo-French could and would still defend India.

I got a problem with the start of the scenario. Why would France would join a war against the soviet union ? You got a country were a third of the population voted for Soviet or Soviet Friendly parties. A war with them would mean a civil war, and a bad one.

Well, that was after WW2 and this, technically, is before WW2. So at worst, France will face guerilla warfare, assassinations and sabotages.
Have you ever read about Operation Pike? The Anglo-Frenc alliance believed they could cause the collapse of the Soviet-Union or at least cripple its economy (and agriculture, perhapse causing famines) by bombing the baku oil wells.
Only stop of the war with Finland, Case Yellow and their own incompetence prevented them from applying that plan. So if the Sino-Soviet bloc makes a move on Iran (to sustaine futur Chinese industrialization), they are possibly enought crazy/stupid to declare war and try something similar.
 
Last edited:
Top