PC check: the "USSR conquers Europe in WW2" assumption

There's an assumption on these boards that a scenario such as a failed D-Day, no American intervention in the European War, or white peace between Britain and Germany, would lead to the Red Army marching all the way into France. I wanted to test how plausible that assumption really is.

For example, the operational distance from the USSR to France is vast - would a war-weary Soviet Union, that has had to fight an even greater share of Nazi Germany's war resources than OTL, be able or willing to project force into France? The logistics of moving war materiel another 500 miles from Berlin to Paris, a 50% increase on the distance from Moscow to Berlin, would be difficult - even with the comparatively better infrastructure of Western Europe.

In addition, though the French Communist movement was a significant part of the underground (and strongly Soviet-aligned), and could arise to fill the power vacuum that resulted from a fallen Wehrmacht, there's no reason to assume that a British-sponsored government-in-exile would be completely incapable of doing the same. The same argument goes for governments in the Low Countries.

Would fighting even continue to the point where the Red Army would be near France and the Benelux at all? Geographically Berlin is closer to the east and would fall sooner than the rest of Germany. We know that Nazi Germany fought to the last inch of territory but would a fall of Berlin comparatively early in a Soviet conquest of Germany mean an earlier capitulation, perhaps without total subjugation of the territory? I concede it is likely that the Soviet Union may have to fight all the way to the Rhine, a task that could take them well into 1947 or further. But again, I am unsure that this would lead to a communist France beyond it.

While we are on the topic - is it really fair to assume that this would lead to a communist Italy as well? The Alps are a formidable natural barrier and it is questionable if fascist Italy would be willing to entertain a losing war with the Soviets to the point where it could be invaded. I would pair that possibility with the idea that a war-weary Soviet Union may well decide to make peace with a Petain-led, authoritarian Vichy France armed with impressed German weaponry, simply due to the logistical nightmare of fighting beyond the Rhine - and with grizzled troops unwilling to continue fighting when the Nazi menace has already been beaten.

The answer may well be 'yes, the above scenarios could plausibly lead to the Red Army on the Channel' - but I'm not convinced, and I'm curious to hear what the forum thinks.
 
It depends on some factors that would be outside of Soviet control. Like Henry Wallace becoming President of the United States after FDR kicks the bucket and be willing to turn a blind eye to Stalin at a very critical time.

I don't think I've seen a timeline with a Wallace Presidency and a failed D-Day here. Probably because it would be very depressing to think about.
 
Sumner Welles in his Seven Great Decisions recalled a conversation Anthony Eden had with him about Eden's December 1941 meeting with Stalin:

"Stalin interjected the observation that Hitler had proved himself to be a man of extraordinary genius. He had succeeded in building up a ruined and divided people into a mighty world power within an incredibly short space of time; he had succeeded in so regimenting the Germans that all elements were completely subservient to his will. 'But', Stalin added, 'Hitler has shown he has one fatal defect. He does not know where to stop.' Mr. Eden said that at that juncture he couldn't help smiling. Stalin, who was intensely serious, at first seemed irritated, and demanded to know the reason for his amusement. But then before Mr. Eden could reply, Stalin answered his own question: 'I realize now why you are smiling, Mr. Eden. You are wondering if I myself will know where to stop. But I can assure you that I will always know where to stop.'"

https://tinyurl.com/yc8d6fne
https://tinyurl.com/ycdub5um
https://tinyurl.com/y7npevwn

Obviously, "where to stop" could vary with circumstances; but I don't think that the UK and US (yes, even under a President Wallace) would just sit by if the Soviets were to overrun western Europe--and I think that Stalin knew it.

Or as Molotov later remarked, "Of course you had to know when and where to stop. I believe in this respect Stalin kept well within the limits." https://books.google.com/books?id=5f90AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59
 
Logistically, it isn’t a real problem under some of these scenarios. The Soviets even before the war excelled at railing huge quantities of supplies over massive distances and, once they had mobilized up and gotten the NKPS on a war footing by late-‘42, in rapid rail conversion. Without the rapid extension of Soviet raillines across Poland in the Vistula-Oder Offensive, with bridges that were supposed to take 20 days to rebuild being rebuilt in as little as 9, the operation would have seized up at Posen. By the time the Berlin Operation began in April, Soviet rail services were delivering ammunition and fuel to the forward railheads on the Oder in quantities that approached Anglo-American levels. The fundamental problem in most plausible scenarios where the Soviets have the power to do it are, as David T’s post indicates, is more political then physical.

If one strangles Barbarossa by having the Soviets resist it better or the Germans execute it worse (or postpone it into 1942, thereby giving the USSR time to rearm and reform enough to mount a credible defense on the frontier), then I can see the Soviets coming out the other end with enough power to easily continue on to roll over the rest of Western and Southern Europe as well, although I imagine the remaining Germans would swiftly surrender, allowing the WAllies to come ashore and overrun those territories without resistance, and Stalin would be uninterested in pursuing war with them.

Similarly, while a failed D-Day may see the Soviets push up to the Rhine, I fail to see how they could then carry onto take France when the WAllies are likely to be able to mount another landing while the Soviets are still fighting their way through Germany. And WAllied forces are already on the ground in Italy even before a “failed D-Day PoD”, so taking it is even more of a non-starter for similar reasons.

The “no WAllies” scenario, though, presents a real problem if we assume that Barbarossa is still at least as successful as OTL and is the one where physical factors make it hard to see the Soviets accomplishing it. Namely the question of how, with suffering the same degree of military and economic losses in 1941-42 as OTL yet receiving no aid from the WAllies, the Soviets are supposed to have overcome the Germans instead of losing or stalemating with them? While not strictly speaking impossible (that the Soviets survived 1942 OTL was practically a miracle itself), it does strike me as quite unlikely. Even in the unlikely scenario that it does... well, again, why wouldn’t the US and/or Britain then (re-)enter the war once it’s obvious that Germany’s on the edge of defeat and land in Western Europe?
 
Last edited:
Top