Why not. It's not more unlikly than the USSR aligning wth Hitler (in a full alignment, not just the OTL non-agression pact).
How does WWII go down with an Allied Italy and an Axis Soviet Union?
- Thread starter Bullmoose713
- Start date
Why not. It's not more unlikly than the USSR aligning wth Hitler (in a full alignment, not just the OTL non-agression pact).
I think that Stalin and Hitler would be too busy with planning to betray each other to do such things as cooperating in the Battle of Britain or having a joint nuclear program.
Though I can see a joint invasion of the Middle East and India, as unlike with Britain the Soviets do gain something there themselves. But whether it is logistically possible is another question.
Emperor_Coz
Banned
The thing is an alliance would not last,you are forgetting Hitlers standards.Hitler designated Slavs at the lowest of the low for European races,and planned to have them executed and gassed like he did to the Jews once the war was finished.However,at one point,Ribbentrop did look for a formal alliance.Ultimately the USSR's demands were unacceptable to the reich and Stalin's Land was invaded soon after.This was only for security,though,and they would be dealt with eventually anyway.
Mussolini disagreed with the Anschluss as part of his New Roman Empire idea he needed Austria.But soon he discovered Germany had more in common with him than not,so any alliance with the Allies was cancelled.
Its 1939.World War II begins as France and the UK declare on Germany and the USSR declares on them.Italy joins too,though not much happens.Mussolini would try an offensive in Austria and be pushed back to Venice.Poland is crushed as the Soviets actually invade with Germany.In 1940 Hitler invades Norway as usual,and invades France as usual.By now the Vichys and Hitler push Mussolini back to Rome,and he flees Italy.By 1941 the Axis control Rome.Meanwhile,Churchill is uneasy.Even an alliance with the USA looks like it will be pointless.Then Pearl Harbour.
Japan would not be abandoned by Germany,and it would have done its thing as usual,and even if he did,Hitler had no business declaring on Japan.Yamamoto still would have decided on Pearl Harbour,as I think the oil embargo still would've happened.Germany sent almost no aid to Japan in the normal timeline,so why would Stalin have done that in this timeline?
Its 1942.Japan loses the Battle of Midway,and Kokoda changes in Australia's favour.Relationships between Hitler and the USSR begin to get rocky as Hitler refuses to change his ideology for Stalin and racial tensions begin to spark in the Balkans and Poland.The UK loses the Battle of Britain,but as Stalin refuses to support an invasion of England,there is still hope.The RAAF rebuilds as the Luftwaffe stops bombing bases and starts bombing cities.Operation Barbarossa is planned,but Ribbentrop and Hitler do not agree with this idea yet.In 1943 The RAAF surrounds most of the Luftwaffe over London and the Luftwaffe and London are both wiped out.
Its 1944.Stalin withdraws all aid to Germany but refuses to invade Germany.The Manhattan project is nearing its final stages,and Japan is beginning to get desperate.Partisans in Yugoslavia continue to disrupt Germany,and De Gaulle and Mussolini call for landings in their respective regions.However Churchill thinks it is highly ambitious,and refuses.
In 1945 Japan surrenders slightly after VJ day in our timeline.Allied forces land in Italy,and begin pushing north.Nuclear bombs are landed in Hiroshima,Nagasaki and Munich.Hitler begins to get scared.Stalin formally makes peace with the Allies but doesnt invade Germany,and Germany doesnt invade it.
Its 1946.Landings in Normandy and Occitanie both liberate France.Mussolini is restored and Allied forces push into Austria.Partisans declare the Communist Republic of Yugoslavia and Germany no longer has any control over the Balkans.Landings in Norway cut off supply lines for Iron.In late 1946,Hitler commits suicide and Germany surrenders.Poland is given Danzig and Konigsberg but not all of the territory it does in our timeline.Italy allies with the USSR in a new cold war.Seven nukes are launched;Nagasaki,Hiroshima,Munich,Hanover,and Cologne.
Mussolini disagreed with the Anschluss as part of his New Roman Empire idea he needed Austria.But soon he discovered Germany had more in common with him than not,so any alliance with the Allies was cancelled.
Its 1939.World War II begins as France and the UK declare on Germany and the USSR declares on them.Italy joins too,though not much happens.Mussolini would try an offensive in Austria and be pushed back to Venice.Poland is crushed as the Soviets actually invade with Germany.In 1940 Hitler invades Norway as usual,and invades France as usual.By now the Vichys and Hitler push Mussolini back to Rome,and he flees Italy.By 1941 the Axis control Rome.Meanwhile,Churchill is uneasy.Even an alliance with the USA looks like it will be pointless.Then Pearl Harbour.
Japan would not be abandoned by Germany,and it would have done its thing as usual,and even if he did,Hitler had no business declaring on Japan.Yamamoto still would have decided on Pearl Harbour,as I think the oil embargo still would've happened.Germany sent almost no aid to Japan in the normal timeline,so why would Stalin have done that in this timeline?
Its 1942.Japan loses the Battle of Midway,and Kokoda changes in Australia's favour.Relationships between Hitler and the USSR begin to get rocky as Hitler refuses to change his ideology for Stalin and racial tensions begin to spark in the Balkans and Poland.The UK loses the Battle of Britain,but as Stalin refuses to support an invasion of England,there is still hope.The RAAF rebuilds as the Luftwaffe stops bombing bases and starts bombing cities.Operation Barbarossa is planned,but Ribbentrop and Hitler do not agree with this idea yet.In 1943 The RAAF surrounds most of the Luftwaffe over London and the Luftwaffe and London are both wiped out.
Its 1944.Stalin withdraws all aid to Germany but refuses to invade Germany.The Manhattan project is nearing its final stages,and Japan is beginning to get desperate.Partisans in Yugoslavia continue to disrupt Germany,and De Gaulle and Mussolini call for landings in their respective regions.However Churchill thinks it is highly ambitious,and refuses.
In 1945 Japan surrenders slightly after VJ day in our timeline.Allied forces land in Italy,and begin pushing north.Nuclear bombs are landed in Hiroshima,Nagasaki and Munich.Hitler begins to get scared.Stalin formally makes peace with the Allies but doesnt invade Germany,and Germany doesnt invade it.
Its 1946.Landings in Normandy and Occitanie both liberate France.Mussolini is restored and Allied forces push into Austria.Partisans declare the Communist Republic of Yugoslavia and Germany no longer has any control over the Balkans.Landings in Norway cut off supply lines for Iron.In late 1946,Hitler commits suicide and Germany surrenders.Poland is given Danzig and Konigsberg but not all of the territory it does in our timeline.Italy allies with the USSR in a new cold war.Seven nukes are launched;Nagasaki,Hiroshima,Munich,Hanover,and Cologne.
If the Nazi-Soviet alliance began in September 1939, it's possible France would have grave doubts about the outcome. It might get cold feet and either end its declaration of war, or try to negotiate. There might not even be a need to conquer the West.
As others have pointed out in previous threads, there would be logistical issues. On the other hand it wouldn't take all that much to overwhelm those areas.
In addition the Soviets could contribute a fair number of subs to the Battle of the Atlantic.
Even before that happened Axis air defenses are likely to be much stronger.
Adolf didn't plan to gas the Russians just let them starve or emigrate to Siberia. True there was the big ideological gulf between the reich and USSR. But it wasn't just Ribbentrop who wanted Soviet help against Britain. Adolf could be very pragmatic; he also wanted it and spoke to Molotov. No doubt a nazi-Soviet alliance would've incurred strains and ultimately broken down. But the nazis probably would've kept it going until they had reaped all its benefits.
First better consider that the Red Army at this stage make the italian one look extremely professional, his air force it's even in a worse shape and the navy a non factor in this scenario, the most probable scenario is that they try some invasion/incursion in Romania, Turkey, Persia and Afganistan that quickly become a stalemate and a costly one...also remember, no Land Lease, so they can't utilize all the manpower of OTL as agricolture and industry need to be manned...and i don't even take in consideration any possible damage done to Baku that will give problem to the Soviet war effort.
One must also consider that with Italy in the allied camp, the original german plan had gone to the trashbin as now they must transfer troops and other assets on the south to protect against italian and allied incursion and that now the allied had the perfect position for air base that cover the Balkans and south Germany
Any soviet asset sent to Britain is wasted even more that the italian forces sent there that frankly had better equipment and were in better shape.
Second, Soviet intelligence effort while impressive was greatly helped by the fact that at the time they were considered allies (much needed allies) so people with clear communist simpathies were not throughfully vetted, here while i expect a lot of information gone to them they will not reach OTL level, not even considering how will be much more difficult to transmit such information and how people can have a second though to betray their country against someone at war with them
OTL WW2 was also a two front war for Germans who along with Soviets bore the brunt of the ground combat and casualties. Who will cause said loses this time around if not US? And it’s doubtful they could.
Nuclear bombs aren’t that powerful indeed, and the image of devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki often forgets to account for poor construction of said cities.
Also with Soviets in German side the extermination of Slavs and East European jews simply cant happen since Germans don’t control said land. Secondly even if they did it’s doubtful they do it to not endanger their lifeline alliance. Dispersion of population and moving it to former allied territories like France and basically holding them hostages against nuclear strike is still possible and within Nazi repertoire.
And lastly there’s a point where nuking turns from a way to end the war quickly and lessen the bloodshed to cold, calculated extermination. Supposing American leadership wasn’t willing to throw men into meat grinder and lose tens of millions of troops so they resort to nuking, at what point does American populace denounce the president as a genocidal monster that’s killing civilians by cityfulls in a calculated manner and vote in someone else.
Or how the Germans pass the alps still having a combat capable force or conquer France of the must guarda against italy
Totally ASB, but it's fun to think about anyway. This almost reminds me of Mackinder's Geographic Pivot of History, where it's going to be the World-Island against the Outlying Islands in the ultimate battle of continents.
France is going to be uber-screwed, China's probably done if the commu-fascists can spare any armored forces to help Japan, and then you've got Eurasia controlled in a giant block with Italy as the last holdout.
Allied Italy is interesting in this scenario, because
-Italy poses a bottleneck for getting into the continent. You can't just throw unlimited WAllies or commu-Nazis into the choke all at once, and the terrain really hinders armor and air power. IOTL fighting in northern Italy turned into a long, brutal slog. Trying to go east through the Carpathians wouldn't be any easier.
-The Med and Gilbralter also pose a bottleneck for getting into Italy.
So the Italian peninsula could be a numerical equalizer in a war featuring absolutely biblical numbers on both sides.
As far as other places you could fight... the Soviets could go through Iran towards modern-day Pakistan, and attack India from there. The US + UK navy is probably still stronger than Germany + USSR + Japan combined, so they might be able to get a foothold on North Africa and use that to threaten the Med with bombers. The WAllies could also set up bomber fleets in India and raid inland Asia - just messing around with Google Maps, having bombers in England, Egypt and north India near Delhi would give you very good coverage. They're going to have to deal with some brutal air defenses though, along with extremely broadly distributed production across two continents. And the roughly dozen or so nukes that were available to the US by 1946 just look inadequate in comparison to the raw size of the German-Soviet-Japanese empire.
If the WAllies try and land anywhere, well hello, there's going to be literally millions of enemy troops in the area within a month or two to drive them out. You could probably gain a local numbers advantage by disguising your landing site, but imagine advancing off the beachheads and facing both armies from Kursk. You couldn't build up fast enough to fight that off.
Bottom line is, the WAllies could try bombing away, but I don't see how they could get a toehold.
France is going to be uber-screwed, China's probably done if the commu-fascists can spare any armored forces to help Japan, and then you've got Eurasia controlled in a giant block with Italy as the last holdout.
Allied Italy is interesting in this scenario, because
-Italy poses a bottleneck for getting into the continent. You can't just throw unlimited WAllies or commu-Nazis into the choke all at once, and the terrain really hinders armor and air power. IOTL fighting in northern Italy turned into a long, brutal slog. Trying to go east through the Carpathians wouldn't be any easier.
-The Med and Gilbralter also pose a bottleneck for getting into Italy.
So the Italian peninsula could be a numerical equalizer in a war featuring absolutely biblical numbers on both sides.
As far as other places you could fight... the Soviets could go through Iran towards modern-day Pakistan, and attack India from there. The US + UK navy is probably still stronger than Germany + USSR + Japan combined, so they might be able to get a foothold on North Africa and use that to threaten the Med with bombers. The WAllies could also set up bomber fleets in India and raid inland Asia - just messing around with Google Maps, having bombers in England, Egypt and north India near Delhi would give you very good coverage. They're going to have to deal with some brutal air defenses though, along with extremely broadly distributed production across two continents. And the roughly dozen or so nukes that were available to the US by 1946 just look inadequate in comparison to the raw size of the German-Soviet-Japanese empire.
If the WAllies try and land anywhere, well hello, there's going to be literally millions of enemy troops in the area within a month or two to drive them out. You could probably gain a local numbers advantage by disguising your landing site, but imagine advancing off the beachheads and facing both armies from Kursk. You couldn't build up fast enough to fight that off.
Bottom line is, the WAllies could try bombing away, but I don't see how they could get a toehold.
Last edited:
Grey Wolf
Donor
IMHO this needs a detailed scenario to discuss. Not a criticism - I think it is a fascinating idea.
BUT to get Italy to declare for the Allies, unless you want to change the whole outcome of the Spanish Civil War and change everything pre-war, then you need a reason for it to happen.
IIRC Britain and France DID offer Italy something in a bid to get them to stay neutral, or even join them.
So, if Italy first takes the bribes and stays neutral and Hitler gets furious and insults them, makes things difficult for them, perhaps Italy goes one jump more, maybe having gotten securities from Britain and France over Libya, Ethiopia, etc.
I cannot see Germany accepting the USSR's interest in joining the Axis until war with Italy adds complication to the Western front
BUT to get Italy to declare for the Allies, unless you want to change the whole outcome of the Spanish Civil War and change everything pre-war, then you need a reason for it to happen.
IIRC Britain and France DID offer Italy something in a bid to get them to stay neutral, or even join them.
So, if Italy first takes the bribes and stays neutral and Hitler gets furious and insults them, makes things difficult for them, perhaps Italy goes one jump more, maybe having gotten securities from Britain and France over Libya, Ethiopia, etc.
I cannot see Germany accepting the USSR's interest in joining the Axis until war with Italy adds complication to the Western front
thaddeus
Donor
the most logical scenario is that some cooperation resumes earlier than the M-R Pact of 1939, the two pariah states of Germany and USSR had dealings all through the Weimar-era, certainly the German military leadership would welcome a thaw? (albeit a chill between Germany-Italy)
for Italy it seems they would remain neutral, declaring for the Allies only at some opportune time?
for Italy it seems they would remain neutral, declaring for the Allies only at some opportune time?
If the Germans/Soviets/Axis are ruling over Europe and pressuring Franco to join, you better believe he's going to.
Italy? An Axis with the Soviets would have crushed them faster than France in OTL.
ASB. Hitler and the Nazis hated Slavs, and Communists, and Bookshelves. They always wanted to destroy the Soviet Union and would not pursue anything more than an alliance of convenience with them. Nor would the Soviets join Germany's fight against Britain, France, and Italy where it has nothing to gain. Partitioning eastern Europe is one thing. But the Soviets sending men to die in the fields of Flanders so the German flag can fly over Paris is quite another.
But assuming it somehow magically happens? It probably turns into a stalemate. In 1939 Italy, France, and the UK together can hold off Germany, and Soviet aid would be minimal with the Winter War. Finland joins the allies and Britain puts more resources into saving Norway so they can send aid through them. And with less resources needed in France with Italy in the war, they can probably pull it off and save Norway. The fighting spreads into southeastern Europe and the middle east, but with no victor in sight. Ultimately after years of hard fighting either the Italian line collapses and the Axis win a negotiated peace, or America enters the war and the Allies drop nukes on Berlin and Moscow. Either way expect casualty numbers to be ludicrous.
Japan signs a non-aggression pact with the Axis and continues on with their war with China, which becomes a minor footnote in the Second Great War.
But assuming it somehow magically happens? It probably turns into a stalemate. In 1939 Italy, France, and the UK together can hold off Germany, and Soviet aid would be minimal with the Winter War. Finland joins the allies and Britain puts more resources into saving Norway so they can send aid through them. And with less resources needed in France with Italy in the war, they can probably pull it off and save Norway. The fighting spreads into southeastern Europe and the middle east, but with no victor in sight. Ultimately after years of hard fighting either the Italian line collapses and the Axis win a negotiated peace, or America enters the war and the Allies drop nukes on Berlin and Moscow. Either way expect casualty numbers to be ludicrous.
Japan signs a non-aggression pact with the Axis and continues on with their war with China, which becomes a minor footnote in the Second Great War.