Possible book - Soviet invasion of the UK...
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
Norman Spinrad has the SU invade UK in 1948 after the already overran all of continental Europe. This happens in his "Hitler becomes an American fantasy author" TL.
1922. The miracle of the Vistula did not happen. The soviets invade Poland and make it part of the USSR. The western allies help Weimar's recovery to fight communism and a pro-western german governement defeats both nazis and reds. Sometime in the 30's, Stalin attacks and overruns east europe, Germany and France, helped by communist revolutions everywhere. But I guess he would face the same problem as Hitler when trying to get to England, the power of the Royal Navy.
I was reading a book called Armegeddon, about the fall of Germany at the end of WW2. One question the author presented is what would of happened if the German Wehrmacht pulled out from the west completely, and sent all troops to the Eastren front to stop the Soviets. As I thought about it, might the SU gotten rightly mad at the Western Allies easy success in taking over German. Hightened friction right from the start. Maybe the Soviets felt betrayed and a smallish war started between the allies, later a demilitarized zone (less US presence), then later a France is isolated, taken over, then UK.
Some sort of change in the 45-50 period has potential, perhaps with no Marshall Plan, but that makes 1978 a late date for a Soviet Conquest of Britain.
No Suez might be a good counter-intuitive option.
This leaves Eden in power, removing the Bermdua Agreement and Polaris. Instead Britain has an obsolete nuclear weapons and never acquires a true strategic deterrent.
This also butterflies away the Fifth Republic in France, which is instead drained by a longer and very costly Algerian war, also therefore never acquiring a strategic deterrent.
Which just leaves the challenge of removing the US from Europe.
How about this...
Two PODs:
1. Finland becomes Communist in the early 1920s (The Communists win the Finnish Civil War). This leads to the Norwegians and Swedes becoming pro-Axis, and they join the Barbarossa offensive in 1941.
2. FDR dies in 1941 and Henry Wallace takes over (yes, this is inspired by For All Time). He is more pro-Soviet than FDR. In the resulting WWII, the Soviets take all of Germany and the Low Countries, thanks to a failed D-Day in 1943. Oh, yeah, they also take Scandinavia.
After a few years of peace, China, Iran, and Greece becomes Communist, triggering the Cold War between the Soviets and the West (1) (the Sino-Soviet split still happens, but the Republic of China gets Hainan Island after aid from Dewey in the 1940s. There is no Korean or Vietnam War, BTW, since the Soviets get Korea and Hokkaido in this TL (ala For All Time) and Vietnam becomes Communist).
Long story short, in 1976, Reagan is elected president (I'll leave it up to you to determine how that happens) and the Soviets decide to knock out Britain and Western Europe in 1978 before the U.S. can do anything about it. From bases in the Low Countries (and Norway), the Soviets go out to invade Britain...
Two PODs:
1. Finland becomes Communist in the early 1920s (The Communists win the Finnish Civil War). This leads to the Norwegians and Swedes becoming pro-Axis, and they join the Barbarossa offensive in 1941.
2. FDR dies in 1941 and Henry Wallace takes over (yes, this is inspired by For All Time). He is more pro-Soviet than FDR. In the resulting WWII, the Soviets take all of Germany and the Low Countries, thanks to a failed D-Day in 1943. Oh, yeah, they also take Scandinavia.
After a few years of peace, China, Iran, and Greece becomes Communist, triggering the Cold War between the Soviets and the West (1) (the Sino-Soviet split still happens, but the Republic of China gets Hainan Island after aid from Dewey in the 1940s. There is no Korean or Vietnam War, BTW, since the Soviets get Korea and Hokkaido in this TL (ala For All Time) and Vietnam becomes Communist).
Long story short, in 1976, Reagan is elected president (I'll leave it up to you to determine how that happens) and the Soviets decide to knock out Britain and Western Europe in 1978 before the U.S. can do anything about it. From bases in the Low Countries (and Norway), the Soviets go out to invade Britain...
There were a mess of novels based on that idea during the 1970s. I'd look at Clive Egleton's first three novels, as well as Ted Allebury's All Our Tomorrows for ideas. They generally tend to be rather glib about how the Soviets got to London, but they generally involve a short conventional conflict, a brief flourish of Soviet high technology to keep the Americans out, and the unions/Labour Party as a fifth column.
As for the whole problem of why nuclear hellfire hasn't rained down upon the globe yet, may I sugest that you turn that potential story weakness into a rationale for your premise? That is, instead of glossing over it, write something along the lines of "nuclear weapons were so terrifying that, when push came to shove, nobody dared to use them." Silly, yes, but mildly plausible if handled right. As for the invasion itself, may I suggest that the Soviets concentrate on building an impressive air fleet that can be deployed anywhere for its invasion needs rather than a navy, which would just get bottled up in the Black or Baltic seas in wartime?
With the Soviets, you're gonna have to totally mess up the post-Stalin succession if want a leadership that would even consider actually making such a move. You're probaby gonna have to start inventing people here, as there's simply no one in OTL who really wanted to go that far, even with all the military advantages in their favor.
With the United States, you'll probably need to damage the country mentally rather than physically to keep them out of the war. Ideally, you'd want something like the Third Republic in France, where politics is such a bloody mess that nobody has enough support to do much of anything. Of course, the American government is stuctured such that the weird permutations common to France don't really happen. To be honest, I don't really have any ideas as to how to reduce the American mindset to the extent required.
As for the whole problem of why nuclear hellfire hasn't rained down upon the globe yet, may I sugest that you turn that potential story weakness into a rationale for your premise? That is, instead of glossing over it, write something along the lines of "nuclear weapons were so terrifying that, when push came to shove, nobody dared to use them." Silly, yes, but mildly plausible if handled right. As for the invasion itself, may I suggest that the Soviets concentrate on building an impressive air fleet that can be deployed anywhere for its invasion needs rather than a navy, which would just get bottled up in the Black or Baltic seas in wartime?
With the Soviets, you're gonna have to totally mess up the post-Stalin succession if want a leadership that would even consider actually making such a move. You're probaby gonna have to start inventing people here, as there's simply no one in OTL who really wanted to go that far, even with all the military advantages in their favor.
With the United States, you'll probably need to damage the country mentally rather than physically to keep them out of the war. Ideally, you'd want something like the Third Republic in France, where politics is such a bloody mess that nobody has enough support to do much of anything. Of course, the American government is stuctured such that the weird permutations common to France don't really happen. To be honest, I don't really have any ideas as to how to reduce the American mindset to the extent required.
Depends when you want your POD. Pre WWII, I like the idea of a Soviet victory in the Polish war and a surviving Weimar state.
Post-WWII, I'd suggest no Marshall Plan for starters, with a nice continuation of Truman's drawdown of the American military, coupled with no Korean War and some sort of distraction in the Western Hemisphere or Asia. Maybe even have the Soviet Union play the diplomatic game smart and recognize the Monroe Doctrine with a treaty, in order to appease the isolationists you'd have to have in order for this scenario to succeed.
Anyway, here's how I'd have it play out. Get Taft elected President in 1948. He's one of the last staunch isolationists, and he'll do the job in getting rid of the Marshall Plan, and he won't go through with NATO. Have the Soviet Union recognize the United States's control of the Western Hemisphere, and back that with the Soviet Bomb in 1949. Hopefully, the Soviet declaration will bank the fires of the Red Panic, and you won't have that fuelling American desires for intervention.
Let's say Taft becomes embroiledi in domestic issues, and indeed does well, even moving the United States slightly to the left with farm subsidies, federal financial aid, and a lot of the other stuff he did in OTL, and probably would've continued in TTL. But foreign issues are another matter entirely, and the Taft administration fumbles those badly. The Cuban situation continues to deteriorate, but Taft is reelected for a second term in 1952, and continues his policies of isolationism, domestic liberalism, and military cuts. These result in an earlier Civil Rights movement, but almost eliminate the U.S. military, which sees its numbers slashed to 1930s levels, with the notable exception of nuclear weapons, which Taft publicly and repeatedly states are to defend the neutrality and peacefullness of the United States.
The Soviet Union, meanwhile, continues much the same as OTL, but Beria succeeds Stalin, and continues the Stalinist terror and secretly prepares for the neutralization of Western Europe, which he misguidedly views as a threat. In TTL, without the help of the United States, Europe will lean much, much more to the left, with Greece, France, Italy, and likely a few other nations going completely Communist. Spain, Britain, Portugal, and a few others will definitely not. Depends on how you want the story to go.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Taft's predecessor faces problems in Cuba, where rebels have overthrown the Batista government. He rushes troops to assist, but the badly-equipped American troops take heavy losses and are pushed back. This is TTL's Vietnam. It can last as long as the story dictates, but the end result is a badly bloodied United States that, after 16 years of isolationist Presidents and Congresses, and one Cuban War later, has a dread of foreign entanglements equal to or greater than OTL's 1930s United States.
This should set the table for you, Chris.
Post-WWII, I'd suggest no Marshall Plan for starters, with a nice continuation of Truman's drawdown of the American military, coupled with no Korean War and some sort of distraction in the Western Hemisphere or Asia. Maybe even have the Soviet Union play the diplomatic game smart and recognize the Monroe Doctrine with a treaty, in order to appease the isolationists you'd have to have in order for this scenario to succeed.
Anyway, here's how I'd have it play out. Get Taft elected President in 1948. He's one of the last staunch isolationists, and he'll do the job in getting rid of the Marshall Plan, and he won't go through with NATO. Have the Soviet Union recognize the United States's control of the Western Hemisphere, and back that with the Soviet Bomb in 1949. Hopefully, the Soviet declaration will bank the fires of the Red Panic, and you won't have that fuelling American desires for intervention.
Let's say Taft becomes embroiledi in domestic issues, and indeed does well, even moving the United States slightly to the left with farm subsidies, federal financial aid, and a lot of the other stuff he did in OTL, and probably would've continued in TTL. But foreign issues are another matter entirely, and the Taft administration fumbles those badly. The Cuban situation continues to deteriorate, but Taft is reelected for a second term in 1952, and continues his policies of isolationism, domestic liberalism, and military cuts. These result in an earlier Civil Rights movement, but almost eliminate the U.S. military, which sees its numbers slashed to 1930s levels, with the notable exception of nuclear weapons, which Taft publicly and repeatedly states are to defend the neutrality and peacefullness of the United States.
The Soviet Union, meanwhile, continues much the same as OTL, but Beria succeeds Stalin, and continues the Stalinist terror and secretly prepares for the neutralization of Western Europe, which he misguidedly views as a threat. In TTL, without the help of the United States, Europe will lean much, much more to the left, with Greece, France, Italy, and likely a few other nations going completely Communist. Spain, Britain, Portugal, and a few others will definitely not. Depends on how you want the story to go.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Taft's predecessor faces problems in Cuba, where rebels have overthrown the Batista government. He rushes troops to assist, but the badly-equipped American troops take heavy losses and are pushed back. This is TTL's Vietnam. It can last as long as the story dictates, but the end result is a badly bloodied United States that, after 16 years of isolationist Presidents and Congresses, and one Cuban War later, has a dread of foreign entanglements equal to or greater than OTL's 1930s United States.
This should set the table for you, Chris.
Maybe if the atomic bomb is never developed an aging and paranoic Stalin in his final years (say 1950) decides to invade the rest of Europe. Local communist revolts in places like Italy or Greece may be the spark for a new war. Stalin feels confident his army (whitout nukes around) can overrun Europe in few weeks. Still don't see, however, how he can get to Britain in face of the huge allied air and naval power. A new missile tech, maybe.
That's why they developed the Northern Fleet - Murmansk, Archangel, Severomorsk etc, so that the route into the North Atlantic could never be blocked like that.
I don't know how you can transport enough forces by air alone to make the conquest. Even in recent conflicts the mass of the soldiers have got the staging posts by ship rather than airborne transport. You can certainly seize key installations, even a whole city by airborne assault, but when the rest of the British Army comes barelling in you're going to need to be unloading divisions somewhere to stop them.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
"All our Tommorrows" by Ted Allbury, written in 1984. The Soviets invite themselves into take over Great Britian. The Americans have left Europe and NATO has been disolved.
Its very good and one of the first books I read as a kid.
I remember a book from the 80's called "Exchange"...I think.
Basic premise was a secret agreement to exchange Western Europe and Central and South America as areas of control between the USA and the USSR in order to produce a more stable geopolitical situation.
Anyone remember this?
Starviking
Basic premise was a secret agreement to exchange Western Europe and Central and South America as areas of control between the USA and the USSR in order to produce a more stable geopolitical situation.
Anyone remember this?
Starviking
What about the Soviets being invited in?
Again, the below is pretty vague and implausible, but not necessarily less so that the Reds being in the UK without nuclear war:
What if some point at/after Suez the Special Relationship founders, or increasing socialist/communist tendencies in the UK after the decline of empire and industrial unrest, failed coup against a hardline Labour Govt - as mooted by David Stirling and his ilk - that is dove-like towards Moscow, coupled with a US nuclear accident in the UK?
Maybe the US is ejected from NATO nations, or finds that without the UK and France in it their military presence becomes untenable. Perhaps this, coupled with the above, compels the US to become more isolationist and leave Europe to concentrate on improving ties with China, allying with her neighbours and Pacific nations like Australia and Japan.
Again, the below is pretty vague and implausible, but not necessarily less so that the Reds being in the UK without nuclear war:
What if some point at/after Suez the Special Relationship founders, or increasing socialist/communist tendencies in the UK after the decline of empire and industrial unrest, failed coup against a hardline Labour Govt - as mooted by David Stirling and his ilk - that is dove-like towards Moscow, coupled with a US nuclear accident in the UK?
Maybe the US is ejected from NATO nations, or finds that without the UK and France in it their military presence becomes untenable. Perhaps this, coupled with the above, compels the US to become more isolationist and leave Europe to concentrate on improving ties with China, allying with her neighbours and Pacific nations like Australia and Japan.
Going back to the idea of no A-bomb--or at least not ones dropped on Japan--say the US goes ahead with its invasion there instead. The invasion, as many theorized, goes badly, bogs down America's military and resources, and the USSR gets more involved in the region. This is a la "For All Time" and other sources. Since the US is more involved in subduing Japan, and is weaker for it, and the USSR takes more territory (let's say entire Korean peninsula and Hokkaido), the West doesn't have as much strength as OTL. Not sure about whether NATO gets developed, but US isn't seen as a strong partner as IOTL.
As for other ideas, some of the radical leftist grps in places like W. Germany and Italy could be more powerful, or the 1980s economic situation in UK become worse than IOTL, but those seem less likely.
As for other ideas, some of the radical leftist grps in places like W. Germany and Italy could be more powerful, or the 1980s economic situation in UK become worse than IOTL, but those seem less likely.
MrP
Banned
That's the fella! The Russkies get terribly confused at the British being annoyed when they stamp down on terrorism by having a division rape the women in Birmingham.
I shudder to think how accusations of that'd go down.
That did make things easier, but there's still the constant headaches with ice and all.
Yeah, you're probably right about that. I was just looking for a way for the Soviets to send people over without relying on a large navy, which would suck up resources needed for the army and air force, as well as trigger a subsequent NATO naval buildup in the years before the invasion can take place.