PODs for Maximum Soviet Advance to Europe in World War 2

With what PODs could the Red Army advanced farthest into Europe?
I read that a complete Soviet Europe is impossible, and that the only area they could reach outside Germany was Saarland, Alsace-Lorraine.

But I want your opinion.

Thanks in advance!
 
I'm not sure what keeps from from puppetizing everything on the European mainland if D-Day fails.
 
It's my opinion that if there is no Western landing for whatever reason, the Red Army, like the Energizer Bunny, will just keep going and going.

I've seen it argued otherwise, that the USSR was on its last legs logistically OTL, and that they could only have gotten as far as they did due to Western (mostly American) Lend-Lease aid. But considering the latter, that aid was ramped up in volume more or less linearly until it was cut off, and so around the time of crucial Soviet turning points after which OTL they advanced steadily westward, very little of the total aid had yet made its way to Russia. Therefore I feel confident that with no Western aid whatsoever, they would indeed have stopped the German advance, and turned it around. A subpoint the "USSR owes its life to American help!" thesis people often make is, toward the end a whole lot of the aid we sent was in the form of trucks and other vehicles that gave them mobility, and without that they could not have advanced. I'd say, no, they could still advance, just more slowly. So in a timeline where the UK withdraws from the war and the USA never enters it, I do think the Russians would still have retaken all their territory---and then pushed on. Any crippling drawbacks translate into a slower advance, but that gives them more time to rebuild behind their recaptured lines, so sooner or later they are taking Berlin. And will keep going.

Conclusion: Without any foreign aid, I believe the Soviet Union alone could have ground Nazi Germany into the dust, and since without a western allied invasion in the west, the Germans would regard all continental Europe as theirs, they'd retreat into France before surrendering--and the Red Army would follow them there. It would be Stalin or his hand-picked puppets running everything; conceivably Sweden and Switzerland might keep meaningful independence by kowtowing to his will on matters of foreign policy, maybe Sweden could advocate for Norway being liberated on terms of very loose Soviet domination. Maybe Stalin would stop at the Spanish border if Franco very carefully avoided ever being drawn into the war. But Franco OTL did send Blue Legion volunteers to the invasion of Russia, so at some point he'd panic and throw in with the Nazis trying to hold the Soviets back, or else if things look hopeless to any rational eye for the Germans, turn away from them, repent of attacking the Soviets, and beg the British if they are still a relevant factor to come in as allies in the hope of deterring Stalin.

I will admit the Soviets would be battered, bruised, and exhausted, and so they might allow things to stop them that they wouldn't if they felt they were riding high and cocky, but having had to fight for their very lives I think if they conceived any threat as intolerable they'd attack regardless of cost. So they might agree to a truce with Franco (and to hell with their lost comrades in the Spanish Civil War) if Spain didn't look like it would harbor any threats. Meaning any Nazis that fled to Spain had better keep on running, because Franco harboring them would be a deal-breaker.

But I don't see any firm limits until they get to the Atlantic Ocean, and that's only a barrier if both the RN and USN are fully functional threats. Assuming Britain got out of the war with a truce and was neither devastated nor bound by treaty to disarm, Stalin can no more invade Britain than Hitler could, but if Britain is greatly weakened somehow, then he might manage that too. Threatening the USA is a whole other issue and one Stalin would not aim for--yet.

Now it could be that having pushed their way all the way to the Atlantic, the vast overextension of the Red Army, the massive depletion of manpower in the core lands and the terrible devastation of all the lands the battle lines swept over (ie, essentially all of Europe:eek:) all mean the Russians have a hard time holding together, with both dissenters among their own and resentful populations they are trying to rule poking guerilla holes in the thin overstretched fabric. But who or what would replace Soviet rule, assuming some faction could locally overthrow them and then hold them at bay? That's out of the scope of the OP question in itself, but it's relevant in terms of the motivations of our potential dissidents and guerillas. What exactly are they fighting for, and can they see a way to realistically attain it? A lack of good answers to these questions would tend to inhibit resistance, and if Stalin and his current crop of lackeys are at all politic, he can be selective in his ruthlessness and cultivate allies, thus buying stability on Communist terms.

Now I note you specifically ask for PODs. I'm not good at that, but I suggest looking into what could make Britain bow out of the war rather than redoubling her efforts after the Soviet Union was attacked. Obviously that means either a different Churchill or more likely, Churchill not being in charge. And frankly handing whoever is PM, and anyone else who might reasonably be expected to toss this dude out, a big shared Idiot Ball. Because of course OTL Hitler attacking Russia was the biggest single break the Allies got in the war; not to take advantage of Hitler's own folly would itself be folly of the highest order.

So one might want to focus instead on Britain making a truce before the German attack plan becomes evident to them--which is also tricky because British intelligence was aware that Hitler did seriously intend to follow through on attacking the Soviets sooner or later. If some PM other than Churchill could be convinced that Britain's interests were best served by coming to terms with Hitler to free him up to go do that, we might have our POD.

Especially because Stalin, according to some accounts I've read, was not a complete idiot on the subject of Hitler's eastward ambitions, and his error lay in assuming Hitler could not possibly strike before settling with the British. Thus if Stalin saw that the British were indeed withdrawing from the fight, he'd be warned and ready his borders with Germany for a German attack. This probably won't stop the Wehrmacht from punching through and devastating the Red Army, but it might slow them down and make the initial battles less uneven, which can help make up for a lack of Western aid and leave the Russians no worse off overall than OTL, or even better off.
 
It's my opinion that if there is no Western landing for whatever reason, the Red Army, like the Energizer Bunny, will just keep going and going.

I've seen it argued otherwise, that the USSR was on its last legs logistically OTL, and that they could only have gotten as far as they did due to Western (mostly American) Lend-Lease aid. But considering the latter, that aid was ramped up in volume more or less linearly until it was cut off, and so around the time of crucial Soviet turning points after which OTL they advanced steadily westward, very little of the total aid had yet made its way to Russia. Therefore I feel confident that with no Western aid whatsoever, they would indeed have stopped the German advance, and turned it around. A subpoint the "USSR owes its life to American help!" thesis people often make is, toward the end a whole lot of the aid we sent was in the form of trucks and other vehicles that gave them mobility, and without that they could not have advanced. I'd say, no, they could still advance, just more slowly. So in a timeline where the UK withdraws from the war and the USA never enters it, I do think the Russians would still have retaken all their territory---and then pushed on. Any crippling drawbacks translate into a slower advance, but that gives them more time to rebuild behind their recaptured lines, so sooner or later they are taking Berlin. And will keep going.

Conclusion: Without any foreign aid, I believe the Soviet Union alone could have ground Nazi Germany into the dust, and since without a western allied invasion in the west, the Germans would regard all continental Europe as theirs, they'd retreat into France before surrendering--and the Red Army would follow them there. It would be Stalin or his hand-picked puppets running everything; conceivably Sweden and Switzerland might keep meaningful independence by kowtowing to his will on matters of foreign policy, maybe Sweden could advocate for Norway being liberated on terms of very loose Soviet domination. Maybe Stalin would stop at the Spanish border if Franco very carefully avoided ever being drawn into the war. But Franco OTL did send Blue Legion volunteers to the invasion of Russia, so at some point he'd panic and throw in with the Nazis trying to hold the Soviets back, or else if things look hopeless to any rational eye for the Germans, turn away from them, repent of attacking the Soviets, and beg the British if they are still a relevant factor to come in as allies in the hope of deterring Stalin.

I will admit the Soviets would be battered, bruised, and exhausted, and so they might allow things to stop them that they wouldn't if they felt they were riding high and cocky, but having had to fight for their very lives I think if they conceived any threat as intolerable they'd attack regardless of cost. So they might agree to a truce with Franco (and to hell with their lost comrades in the Spanish Civil War) if Spain didn't look like it would harbor any threats. Meaning any Nazis that fled to Spain had better keep on running, because Franco harboring them would be a deal-breaker.

But I don't see any firm limits until they get to the Atlantic Ocean, and that's only a barrier if both the RN and USN are fully functional threats. Assuming Britain got out of the war with a truce and was neither devastated nor bound by treaty to disarm, Stalin can no more invade Britain than Hitler could, but if Britain is greatly weakened somehow, then he might manage that too. Threatening the USA is a whole other issue and one Stalin would not aim for--yet.

Now it could be that having pushed their way all the way to the Atlantic, the vast overextension of the Red Army, the massive depletion of manpower in the core lands and the terrible devastation of all the lands the battle lines swept over (ie, essentially all of Europe:eek:) all mean the Russians have a hard time holding together, with both dissenters among their own and resentful populations they are trying to rule poking guerilla holes in the thin overstretched fabric. But who or what would replace Soviet rule, assuming some faction could locally overthrow them and then hold them at bay? That's out of the scope of the OP question in itself, but it's relevant in terms of the motivations of our potential dissidents and guerillas. What exactly are they fighting for, and can they see a way to realistically attain it? A lack of good answers to these questions would tend to inhibit resistance, and if Stalin and his current crop of lackeys are at all politic, he can be selective in his ruthlessness and cultivate allies, thus buying stability on Communist terms.

Now I note you specifically ask for PODs. I'm not good at that, but I suggest looking into what could make Britain bow out of the war rather than redoubling her efforts after the Soviet Union was attacked. Obviously that means either a different Churchill or more likely, Churchill not being in charge. And frankly handing whoever is PM, and anyone else who might reasonably be expected to toss this dude out, a big shared Idiot Ball. Because of course OTL Hitler attacking Russia was the biggest single break the Allies got in the war; not to take advantage of Hitler's own folly would itself be folly of the highest order.

So one might want to focus instead on Britain making a truce before the German attack plan becomes evident to them--which is also tricky because British intelligence was aware that Hitler did seriously intend to follow through on attacking the Soviets sooner or later. If some PM other than Churchill could be convinced that Britain's interests were best served by coming to terms with Hitler to free him up to go do that, we might have our POD.

Especially because Stalin, according to some accounts I've read, was not a complete idiot on the subject of Hitler's eastward ambitions, and his error lay in assuming Hitler could not possibly strike before settling with the British. Thus if Stalin saw that the British were indeed withdrawing from the fight, he'd be warned and ready his borders with Germany for a German attack. This probably won't stop the Wehrmacht from punching through and devastating the Red Army, but it might slow them down and make the initial battles less uneven, which can help make up for a lack of Western aid and leave the Russians no worse off overall than OTL, or even better off.

Yes Lendlease wasn't in full swing when the Soviets were ending all hopes of the Nazi advance in Russia, but it most certainly was heavily in effect when the Soviet began their long march westward. Without Lendlease, and without a Western threat to Germany sapping German divisions westward, the Russians simply don't have the resources to occupy Germany, much less cross the Rhine. What they do have is certainly enough to push the Nazis to the pre-war border, and eventually wrestle Germany into submission, but we are talking about several more years of combat and millions of casualties more. The Russians would be in such bad shape by the end that they couldn't occupy Western Europe even if they wanted to. Crossing a major mountain range like the Pyrenees is even more absurd. There is a reason the Allies never tried to invade Germany via the Alps after all. Franco could send Stalin a big !@#@ you card and there is very little that he could do about it.
 
Top