PC: British Empire vs. Soviet Union Cold War

The Soviet Union was founded after the Russian Civil War of 1922, when 16 equal Soviet Socialist Republics joined together to form the basis for the Union. I don't know why you are talking about the 1950's, as that is well beyond the era of the CCCP's formation.

One Soviet Marshall does not speak for the entire will of the Soviet people.

Of course the Soviets were desperate in seeking allied support during the war, it is not as if they were going to willingly sacrifice more soldiers than they needed to and they certainly could of used additional assistance. But regardless of this, the Germans still never would of been able to break past Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad. These battles played out in a way that the German numbers were all but obsolete, if they decided to throw more troops into these ill fated endeavors it would of simply meant more prisoners for the Soviets to deal with. Environmental factors when combined with the brutality of this style of urban warfare would of crippled the German military either way. If anything, the German troops in the theater would only of been rendered more ineffectual if their numbers were inflated to greater heights, as they were already suffering from a sever lack of winter equipment and supplies.

oh, so you are serious.... really?

there are no historians, aside from the official now discredited Soviet historians, that agree with anything that you posted above regarding the 'voluntary' aspect of the Soviet Union.

As to the Germans not being able to win.. sure in 1941 they lacked the logistics and the preparation necessary. The big problem was not a shortage of winter equipment for the Wehrmacht, it was the huge difficulties in moving it forward to the troops in Russia while at the same time moving ammunition, spares, food, and reinforcements forward while trying to repair Soviet rail lines and roads at the same time. However, even then, Leningrad and Moscow are very near run things for the Soviets and Stalingrad also with could have been a German victory with only a few changes to the variables.

Even halted however, the Germans still controlled huge chunks of the most valuable agricultural and industrial territory of the Soviet Union and had to be pushed out after Kursk. Which the Soviets admit they could not do without outside help.

As to equal Republics? Just how equal, really, were the Central Asians (who were routinely called disparging names by the Russians) or the Ukranians (deliberately starved by the millions by Stalin) or the Volga Germans (deported to Siberia by force in 1942), Crimean Tartars (deported by force to Siberia post 1944), or the Balts (forceably annexed, subject to gratitous and fierce purges,executions and deportation BOTH times when occupied by Soviet forces).
 
Gridley

I think in this scenario Britain would have to make a separate peace. After the waste and decay of the 20's and 30's it would need a leader far wiser and more aware of his resources than Churchill to keep things functioning. At the least it would have to go for a fabian approach of only producing what it could support, only fighting where it had the strength and cutting to the bone any external imports. It could be done, possibly, but would need a different leader than Churchill.

Steve


Rex Romanum, is your goal a Cold War without major US involvement, with a PoD in the late '30s/early '40s?

If so, perhaps:

PoD: early May/June 1940, FDR dies. John Garner becomes the new POTUS, but he and Henry Wallace split the Democratic party vote, while after a free-wheeling convention Arthur Vandenberg (one of the front runners IOTL) takes the Republican nomination and wins the election. Garner is unable to push though the oil embargo on Japan.

Vandenberg is (was IOTL) a staunch isolationist. There will be no Lend-Lease act ITTL.

Presto! Britain is on its own. Japan continues to fight in China, and can buy oil from the DEI - no need to declare war on the UK and the Netherlands, which means no need to declare war on the US.

WWII is reduced to the British Empire and the USSR fighting Germany. Absent Lend-lease it is unlikely that the British can invade France. They can draw on India/Burma/etc for manpower, but there won't be any lend-lease Shermans, halftracks, SP guns... the list goes on. Even IOTL much of the motor equipment of the Commonwealth forces was US-built, so just equipping a force the size of OTL will be tough, and that's not enough. Bomber Command on its own is going to have a rough time beating down the Luftwaffe. The USSR will still be able to STOP the Germans, but rolling them back is going to be a slow process. Without their Lend-Lease the Soviets can only draft so many troops before their economy collapses and they can't feed their army, much less the civilian population. Figure they run out of men at the 1939 borders.

The British Empire scrapes up enough to invade Italy, flipping them as OTL, but can't push past the Alps.

1944 rolls around: Germany is battle-damaged, but they hold their mainland empire. Vandenberg loses, and the US puts in an more internationalist president. The new POTUS is very happy to sell weapons to the British while building up the US Army from its OTL 1940 levels. It will still take several years to bring the US Army up to the strength needed for an expeditionary force, but the British can field a large army as well once the US equips it.

The WAllies invade Europe in 1946, and fight a bloody campaign against a much larger German force that OTL. US losses in particular are heavy, as the US has not had the "warmup" campaigns of OTL. The Allies are victorious, meeting up with the Soviets around Berlin (Lend-Lease has played a role in putting the Soviets back into the fight as well). US losses, however, are far above OTL. This leads the US to return to an isolationist view; the weaker USSR is not as much of an apparent threat.

The British Empire is left as the strong arm of Democracy outside of the Americas. While the US favors the Brits, they are not the military superpower of OTL. The USSR has also suffered more heavily than OTL, and is less of a superpower in its own right than OTL.
 
I'm oddly tempted to try to write a TL with this PoD and early development. Thoughts? Interest?

I'd read it. That said I still think it would be a lot more likely for a Cold War between the British Empire and the US rather than the Soviets. Prove me wrong and I will be entertained.
 
About the ATL West-East Germany border, it's actually based on the fact that in OTL the British were far more poised to take Berlin than the Americans:
Eisenhower switches his main thrust to 12th Army Group front (28 March)

On 28 March, as these developments unfolded, Eisenhower announced his decision to adjust his plans governing the future course of the offensive. Once the Ruhr was surrounded, he wanted the Ninth Army transferred from the 21 Army Group to the 12th. After the reduction of the Ruhr Pocket, the main thrust east would be made by Bradley's 12th Army Group in the center, rather than by Montgomery's 21 Army Group in the north as originally planned. Montgomery's forces were to secure Bradley's northern flank while Devers' 6th Army Group covered Bradley's southern shoulder. Furthermore, the main objective was no longer Berlin, but Leipzig where a juncture with the Soviet Army would split the remaining German forces in two. Once this was done the 21 Army Group would take Luebeck and Wismar on the Baltic Sea, cutting off the Germans remaining in the Jutland peninsula of Denmark, while the 6th Army Group and the Third Army drove south into Austria.[19]
The British Prime Minister and Chiefs of Staff strongly opposed the new plan. Despite the Russian proximity to Berlin, they argued that the city was still a critical political, if not military, objective. Eisenhower, supported by the American Chiefs of Staff, disagreed. His overriding objective was the swiftest military victory possible. Should the U.S. political leadership direct him to take Berlin, or if a situation arose in which it became militarily advisable to seize the German capital, Eisenhower would do so; otherwise he would pursue those objectives which would end the war soonest. In addition, since Berlin and the rest of Germany had already been divided into occupation zones by representatives of the Allied governments at the Yalta Conference, Eisenhower saw no political advantage in a race for Berlin. Any ground the western Allies gained in the future Soviet zone would merely be relinquished to the Soviets after the war. In the end the campaign proceeded as Eisenhower had planned it.[20]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Allied_invasion_of_Germany#cite_note-19

So with the absence of US involvement I suspect the British would drive sraigth toward Berlin.

I'm oddly tempted to try to write a TL with this PoD and early development. Thoughts? Interest?

Here! Here! :D
 
If you write that TL Gridley, consider me subscribed. It'd be nice to see the Empire & Commonwealth come forward one last time to save the world from the dastardly machinations of Johnny Foreigner and his evil twisted political creed;)
 
If you write that TL Gridley, consider me subscribed. It'd be nice to see the Empire & Commonwealth come forward one last time to save the world from the dastardly machinations of Johnny Foreigner and his evil twisted political creed;)

LordIreland

That presumes we succeed.;) However Gridley has actually started it. See TL President Vandenberg. :D Let's see what develops.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Gridley

I think in this scenario Britain would have to make a separate peace. After the waste and decay of the 20's and 30's it would need a leader far wiser and more aware of his resources than Churchill to keep things functioning. At the least it would have to go for a fabian approach of only producing what it could support, only fighting where it had the strength and cutting to the bone any external imports. It could be done, possibly, but would need a different leader than Churchill.

Steve

Hmm. You're probably right. However, on reflection the idea that the US would stay out of the war until 1944 is also unlikely.

I'd read it. That said I still think it would be a lot more likely for a Cold War between the British Empire and the US rather than the Soviets. Prove me wrong and I will be entertained.

I can't prove you wrong. I'm not sure you are wrong myself. But I don't write TLs based on the most likely sequence of events, just on possible sequences of events (they may or may not be the most likely).

If you write that TL Gridley, consider me subscribed. It'd be nice to see the Empire & Commonwealth come forward one last time to save the world from the dastardly machinations of Johnny Foreigner and his evil twisted political creed;)

LordIreland

That presumes we succeed.;) However Gridley has actually started it. See TL President Vandenberg. :D Let's see what develops.

Steve

TL thread is indeed started here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=199514

Though I'm still in the discussion/research phase. Input is highly encouraged.
 
oh, so you are serious.... really?

there are no historians, aside from the official now discredited Soviet historians, that agree with anything that you posted above regarding the 'voluntary' aspect of the Soviet Union.

As to the Germans not being able to win.. sure in 1941 they lacked the logistics and the preparation necessary. The big problem was not a shortage of winter equipment for the Wehrmacht, it was the huge difficulties in moving it forward to the troops in Russia while at the same time moving ammunition, spares, food, and reinforcements forward while trying to repair Soviet rail lines and roads at the same time. However, even then, Leningrad and Moscow are very near run things for the Soviets and Stalingrad also with could have been a German victory with only a few changes to the variables.

Even halted however, the Germans still controlled huge chunks of the most valuable agricultural and industrial territory of the Soviet Union and had to be pushed out after Kursk. Which the Soviets admit they could not do without outside help.

As to equal Republics? Just how equal, really, were the Central Asians (who were routinely called disparging names by the Russians) or the Ukranians (deliberately starved by the millions by Stalin) or the Volga Germans (deported to Siberia by force in 1942), Crimean Tartars (deported by force to Siberia post 1944), or the Balts (forceably annexed, subject to gratitous and fierce purges,executions and deportation BOTH times when occupied by Soviet forces).

Ok, so you do realize that the brunt of your argument is hanging upon some incredibly vague situation wherein Nazi Germany somehow just does better against the Soviets, right? You are saying nothing beyond 'oh but what if the Germans did better', which is just meaningless. The simple fact of the matter is that allied support to the CCCP was not enough to sway the war either way, and that the Soviet Union would of emerged from the great patriotic war victorious either way. So they may of taken more casualties or it may of taken longer without an allied second front, but the fact still stands that in the OTL that the allied front was opened up incredibly late in the war and by that time it was largely symbolic. The Germans could not break the Soviet strongholds of Leningrand, Stalingrad, and Moscow before heavy allied involvement in the war, there is no reason to believe that anything would of been too dramatically altered in this scenario. Stop playing the Soviets off as a bunch of little children who needed to be guided by America and the allies to victory, the CCCP was a sprawling nation of millions which was in possession of a potent and capable industrial economy. Once they survived the initial German onslaught of Barbarossa, they won the war. And they did that without much of any allied assistance. So why don't you stop drooling over the nazi military and actually try making a real argument next time.

And once more, the Soviet Union was founded in 1922, you are a complete idiot. That era is irrelevant to its founding.
 
Ok, so you do realize that the brunt of your argument is hanging upon some incredibly vague situation wherein Nazi Germany somehow just does better against the Soviets, right? You are saying nothing beyond 'oh but what if the Germans did better', which is just meaningless. The simple fact of the matter is that allied support to the CCCP was not enough to sway the war either way, and that the Soviet Union would of emerged from the great patriotic war victorious either way. So they may of taken more casualties or it may of taken longer without an allied second front, but the fact still stands that in the OTL that the allied front was opened up incredibly late in the war and by that time it was largely symbolic. The Germans could not break the Soviet strongholds of Leningrand, Stalingrad, and Moscow before heavy allied involvement in the war, there is no reason to believe that anything would of been too dramatically altered in this scenario. Stop playing the Soviets off as a bunch of little children who needed to be guided by America and the allies to victory, the CCCP was a sprawling nation of millions which was in possession of a potent and capable industrial economy. Once they survived the initial German onslaught of Barbarossa, they won the war. And they did that without much of any allied assistance. So why don't you stop drooling over the nazi military and actually try making a real argument next time.

And once more, the Soviet Union was founded in 1922, you are a complete idiot. That era is irrelevant to its founding.

first, lets not be offensive... I haven't called you names, in spite of questionable scholarship and reasoning, so respect the board and behave like a scholar instead of an idealogue.

The point is crystal clear... the Soviet economy lacked the capacity after its initial losses in 1941 to do better than a draw against Nazi Germany without American economic aid through lend lease, and through direct military support through the American contributions in the War against Hitler in Western Europe, Italy, the Mediterranean, Atlantic and the Combined Bomber offensive. Without that aid it is questionable whether the British could have held driven the Germans out of North Africa for that matter.

No one has questioned the Soviet will to fight, nor their abilities on the battlefield. What is questionable is whether the Soviets had the means to continue the war without American aid on any basis besides a draw or losing. Will and Spirit are not enough, just ask the Japanese in 1946.

The formation of the Soviet Union, as an official name, is irrelevent. The Soviet state existed because of the Reds were somewhat more competent than the Whites during the Russian Civil War, and because the conditions on the ground favored the Revolution (World War I and the fragility of Russian society in general), not because the Kazakhs, Turkmani, Georgians etc are decided it would be a great idea to remain part of the Russian imperial structure that had dominated them for over a century already and now had a new name. The desirability of staying in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was made clear by the continued resistance to Communist Russian domination by a huge number of varied groups and peoples during the entire 1918-1989 period, and the hurried exit of every single one of those 'soveriegn' republics as soon as they could get away with it.
 
Last edited:
first, lets not be offensive... I haven't called you names, in spite of questionable scholarship and reasoning, so respect the board and behave like a scholar instead of an idealogue.

The point is crystal clear... the Soviet economy lacked the capacity after its initial losses in 1941 to do better than a draw against Nazi Germany without American economic aid through lend lease, and through direct military support through the American contributions in the War against Hitler in Western Europe, Italy, the Mediterranean, Atlantic and the Combined Bomber offensive. Without that aid it is questionable whether the British could have held driven the Germans out of North Africa for that matter.

No one has questioned the Soviet will to fight, nor their abilities on the battlefield. What is questionable is whether the Soviets had the means to continue the war without American aid on any basis besides a draw or losing. Will and Spirit are not enough, just ask the Japanese in 1946.

The formation of the Soviet Union, as an official name, is irrelevent. The Soviet state existed because of the Reds were somewhat more competent than the Whites during the Russian Civil War, and because the conditions on the ground favored the Revolution (World War I and the fragility of Russian society in general), not because the Kazakhs, Turkmani, Georgians etc are decided it would be a great idea to remain part of the Russian imperial structure that had dominated them for over a century already and now had a new name. The desirability of staying in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was made clear by the continued resistance to Communist Russian domination by a huge number of varied groups and peoples during the entire 1918-1989 period, and the hurried exit of every single one of those 'soveriegn' republics as soon as they could get away with it.

You really don't seem to understand that after the initial German invasion, the Soviet war economy was basically reassembled safely across the Urals. After they survived the initial German offensive, it was only a matter of time until their factories outproduced those of Germany. And given their massive supply of manpower and natural resources, they would of won that war of attrition handily. Your analogy to Japan is thus rendered irrelevant due to these factors.

How is the founding of the Soviet Union irrelevant to the founding of the Soviet Union? I cannot argue against such nonsense.
 
You really don't seem to understand that after the initial German invasion, the Soviet war economy was basically reassembled safely across the Urals. After they survived the initial German offensive, it was only a matter of time until their factories outproduced those of Germany. And given their massive supply of manpower and natural resources, they would of won that war of attrition handily. Your analogy to Japan is thus rendered irrelevant due to these factors.

How is the founding of the Soviet Union irrelevant to the founding of the Soviet Union? I cannot argue against such nonsense.

the Soviets won their war of attrition because they were able to devote nearly the entirety of what remained of their economy to war production, mainly because the US took up the slack. You are basically rattling off Cold War era Soviet propaganda, which even the Russian government no longer teaches as the 'truth'. Without that help from the US, and to a lesser degree the British, the Soviet economy would have collapsed or had to massively cut down its war production to keep from collapsing. The statistics are in the thread, and widely available in any book on the Eastern Front written in the last 20 years.

If anything, you are actually underestimating the Soviet achievements... they moved 25 million people along with those factories in the desperate months of 1941, but even still, it took many months to get things back in gear after that move. As late as October 1942 the Soviets had serious shortages of weapons at Stalingrad, the highest priority position on the entire Eastern Front.

Again, I am not saying the Soviet achievement is at all minor, it was a triumph of an entire people. But even that would not have been enough to drive the Germans back out of Russia and reach Berlin by 1945 without the US help, and probably they never would have.

Bottom line, there would not have been a Cold War between the Soviet Union and British Empire UNLESS Nazi Germany was eliminated, and that seems highly unlikely without all three of the Great Powers (US, British Empire AND Soviet Union) who all contributed to the demise of not only the Nazis, but also Fascist Italy, the various Fascist States of Eastern Europe and the Japanese Empire.

Therefore the likelihood of a Soviet vs British Empire Cold War is seriously flawed and improbable.
 
the Soviets won their war of attrition because they were able to devote nearly the entirety of what remained of their economy to war production, mainly because the US took up the slack. You are basically rattling off Cold War era Soviet propaganda, which even the Russian government no longer teaches as the 'truth'. Without that help from the US, and to a lesser degree the British, the Soviet economy would have collapsed or had to massively cut down its war production to keep from collapsing. The statistics are in the thread, and widely available in any book on the Eastern Front written in the last 20 years.

If anything, you are actually underestimating the Soviet achievements... they moved 25 million people along with those factories in the desperate months of 1941, but even still, it took many months to get things back in gear after that move. As late as October 1942 the Soviets had serious shortages of weapons at Stalingrad, the highest priority position on the entire Eastern Front.

Again, I am not saying the Soviet achievement is at all minor, it was a triumph of an entire people. But even that would not have been enough to drive the Germans back out of Russia and reach Berlin by 1945 without the US help, and probably they never would have.

Bottom line, there would not have been a Cold War between the Soviet Union and British Empire UNLESS Nazi Germany was eliminated, and that seems highly unlikely without all three of the Great Powers (US, British Empire AND Soviet Union) who all contributed to the demise of not only the Nazis, but also Fascist Italy, the various Fascist States of Eastern Europe and the Japanese Empire.

Therefore the likelihood of a Soviet vs British Empire Cold War is seriously flawed and improbable.

Why would a capitalistic modern Russian government seek to portray the socialist Soviet Union in a positive light? Beyond the very limited nationalistic potential inherent to such a risky approach, they would naturally seek to distort the truth to their own ideological ends.

And you really are saying that the victory of the Soviet people over Nazi Germany is something to be underwritten as the work of the west. Your entire argument hinges upon the horribly western perspective that the Great Patriotic War was merely an extension of its own applied economic capacity. The Soviets had a functional economy that was steadily growing after the first salvos from the Germans, it was only a matter of time until their production rates caught up and surpassed those of Germany. US supplies certainly helped in the short term, but it is absolutely baseless to say that they changed the course of the war. This is nothing but a pathetic attempt to undermine the achievements of the Soviet Union and her people with typical poorly thought out western style propaganda. Because it would be impossible for anyone to do anything in the world without American support or guidance, especially if they are communist. Nazi Germany was a weak entity doomed to an ill fate by a lack of manpower and natural resources, it would of fallen to the might of the Soviet Union with or without the flow of the all powerful American supplies.

The Soviets were short of weapons in key points of battle, but they still managed to hold their line well enough. Given the nature of these choke points though, it wouldn't of mattered if the Germans had more manpower to throw at the Soviets. As I have previously stated, the nature of this intense urban warfare made numbers largely irrelevant. The only result that would of come from a strengthened German eastern front would be more prisoners for the Soviets to process and more weaponry for the Soviets to capture. And once more, you have the question of supplies, which would of only become even more scarce for the Germans if more men were present in this theater.
 
Why would a capitalistic modern Russian government seek to portray the socialist Soviet Union in a positive light? Beyond the very limited nationalistic potential inherent to such a risky approach, they would naturally seek to distort the truth to their own ideological ends.

Why are you assuming the current government of Russia is a modern capitalist state?

Do you also believe the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is a modern capitalist state? After all, it says so right on the label!
 
Why would a capitalistic modern Russian government seek to portray the socialist Soviet Union in a positive light? Beyond the very limited nationalistic potential inherent to such a risky approach, they would naturally seek to distort the truth to their own ideological ends.

And you really are saying that the victory of the Soviet people over Nazi Germany is something to be underwritten as the work of the west. Your entire argument hinges upon the horribly western perspective that the Great Patriotic War was merely an extension of its own applied economic capacity. The Soviets had a functional economy that was steadily growing after the first salvos from the Germans, it was only a matter of time until their production rates caught up and surpassed those of Germany. US supplies certainly helped in the short term, but it is absolutely baseless to say that they changed the course of the war. This is nothing but a pathetic attempt to undermine the achievements of the Soviet Union and her people with typical poorly thought out western style propaganda. Because it would be impossible for anyone to do anything in the world without American support or guidance, especially if they are communist. Nazi Germany was a weak entity doomed to an ill fate by a lack of manpower and natural resources, it would of fallen to the might of the Soviet Union with or without the flow of the all powerful American supplies.

The Soviets were short of weapons in key points of battle, but they still managed to hold their line well enough. Given the nature of these choke points though, it wouldn't of mattered if the Germans had more manpower to throw at the Soviets. As I have previously stated, the nature of this intense urban warfare made numbers largely irrelevant. The only result that would of come from a strengthened German eastern front would be more prisoners for the Soviets to process and more weaponry for the Soviets to capture. And once more, you have the question of supplies, which would of only become even more scarce for the Germans if more men were present in this theater.

I am going to assume now that until you read a broader selection of works that discuss the war, that further discussion with you is pointless. Clearly you have a very fixed point of view based on limited sources with slanted points of view. Bottom line, you simply do not understand the actual nature of the Great Patriotic War. Aside from Stalingrad, and some early battles like Odessa, there were very few urban battles during that campaign. Both sides usually tried to bypass cities, preferring to cut them off and mop them up after the defenders were short of supplies.

Mobile operations involving combined arms decided that war, and the Soviets learned to master those operations after a steep and costly learning period. But knowing how to use combined arms mechanized formations is irrelevant if you don't have trucks to move the troops, supplies and ammunition forward, nor for that matter don't have sufficient radios to coordinate movement and fire. It doesn't matter how many aircraft you build if you have insufficient aviation fuel to fly them, nor communications equipment for them, or rubber for their tires.

As stated, half of those things came from the West.

There is a saying you should consider...'amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics". No modern army fights successfully without logistical support, and a huge amount of that vital support in World War II for the Soviet Red Army was indeed supplied by the West.
 
Top