Red Europe

The assumption of my topic of this thread is the defeat of the German offensive in the West in 1940. Germany fails to defeat France, for example because the allied intelligence steal plans for an offensive, or Hitler rejects the idea of attack by the Ardennes. On the western front a position war begins. Italy does not join the fight. Gradually, due to the greater economic and population potential, allied forces, mainly France and Great Britain, gain a decisive advantage over Germany and move to counter-offensive. In autumn 1941, the Allies entered the territory of Germany. At this moment, when Hitler's defeat becomes obvious, Stalin decides to join the game. At the beginning of 1942, the Red Army attacks Germany, which in the next few months is defeated and divided between the Allies and the USSR. However, Stalin is not satisfied with this. On his orders, the Red Army attacks the surprised allied army in Germany and moves west, reaching all the way to the Atlantic. Europe is dominated by the USSR. How will this change global politics?
 
You probably would need much stronger Red Army. So there shouldn't be purges in army but you need different Stalin or someone else who is friendlier for effective army and its most cabable generals.
 
You are assuming Europe stays red. I would wager that following a Soviet invasion of the West you would still see a continuation of something similar to OTL WWII. Britain didn’t make peace with Hitler in 1940, it’s unlikely they would give in to a stab in the back from Stalin two years later, especially as the Soviets are even less prepared to lay siege to the British Isles. I think this would definitely provoke an American response and probable entry into the war. You still have Italy untouched on the Mediterranean flank and Spain on the Southwest who would both be keen to fight the Communists. Japan won’t go into FIC ITTL, so they’re not under embargo, and so more likely to move against the USSR in either ‘41 or ‘42. So now WWII is the Soviets versus the world, and I don’t think it will end well for them.
 
You probably would need much stronger Red Army. So there shouldn't be purges in army but you need different Stalin or someone else who is friendlier for effective army and its most cabable generals.
I believe that until 1942 the Soviet officer corps would be rebuilt.
Soviets are even less prepared to lay siege to the British Isles.
But would the Soviets have to besiege the British Isles? And so they would dominate in Europe, and lonely Britain would not be able to threaten their hegemony. The Soviet empire would be economically self-sufficient.
I think this would definitely provoke an American response and probable entry into the war.
The US didn't declare war on Germany after the fall of France, an attack on the USSR or even Pearl Harbor. The Germans themselves declared it.
Besides, I don't think the US will go to war with all of Europe. Truman rejected McArthur's proposal to invade China during the Korean war.
You still have Italy untouched on the Mediterranean flank and Spain on the Southwest who would both be keen to fight the Communists.
I believe that the USSR will take over these countries after the conquest of France. Their armies were much weaker than the Red Army.
Japan won’t go into FIC ITTL, so they’re not under embargo, and so more likely to move against the USSR in either ‘41 or ‘42.
Japan wasn't interested in the war of the USSR. In addition, the Kwantung Army was much weaker than the Soviet army stationed in the Far East.
 
But would the Soviets have to besiege the British Isles? And so they would dominate in Europe, and lonely Britain would not be able to threaten their hegemony. The Soviet empire would be economically self-sufficient.
They would if they wanted to defeat the UK. The Germans were unable when they dominated Europe, and the Soviets lack the submarine threat to British convoys. Britain can't defeat the USSR on its own, but it can act as the jump-off point for American forces, just as it did OTL. As for economically self-sufficient, remember how much Lend-Lease materiel the Soviets received from the UK and US to stay afloat OTL. They are also fighting at the end of an enormous logistic chain that is likely under partisan attack throughout its length.

The US didn't declare war on Germany after the fall of France, an attack on the USSR or even Pearl Harbor. The Germans themselves declared it.
Besides, I don't think the US will go to war with all of Europe. Truman rejected McArthur's proposal to invade China during the Korean war.
The US was working its way out of isolationism throughout 1941, and sometime in 1942 likely would have gone to war against Germany. This is when the Germans were still countered by a Soviet power that could somewhat balance them. Now the Soviets have invaded all of Europe to become sole hegemon? You can bet the US will gear up for that fight.

I believe that the USSR will take over these countries after the conquest of France. Their armies were much weaker than the Red Army.
I don't think that will be necessary as all the countries around the Mediterranean will probably enter the war once the Soviets roll west out of Germany. Sure individually they might be weaker, but now the Red Army is facing a battle-hardened UK and France, Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. The Alps and Pyrenees provide excellent defensive barriers, but surely those nations won't wait til the Soviets come knocking to go to war. They were all ruled by anti-Communist fascists/pseudo-fascists/right-leaning dictators. And the Soviets are still operating at the end of a long logistics rope (which they have zero experience maintaining) and having to garrison all their newly conquered land.

Japan wasn't interested in the war of the USSR. In addition, the Kwantung Army was much weaker than the Soviet army stationed in the Far East.
I would argue they were very interested in war with the USSR, hence the "Northern Expansion Doctrine" backed by the IJA. ITTL, the Soviets have made themselves enemies of the world, so Japan gains political points for fighting against them and will likely be pressured to do so by the Western Allies. They aren't resource-strapped so they don't need to move south. I looked for accurate comparisons between the Far East Front and Kwantung Army in 1942, if you have a source to prove that I'd be very interested.
 
As for economically self-sufficient, remember how much Lend-Lease materiel the Soviets received from the UK and US to stay afloat OTL. They are also fighting at the end of an enormous logistic chain that is likely under partisan attack throughout its length.
Yes, but it happened after the Germans occupied an area inhabited by 40% population of the USSR, including the most important agricultural areas, destroying most of the Soviet military equipment they had accumulated over the years (in June 1941, the Red Army had 28,800 tanks. In May 1942 only less than 6,200 of them remained). In this scenario, the Soviets not only do not lose any land, but gain control over the resources and industry of Central and Western Europe. Soviets and their dependent governments were very effective in fighting guerrilla warfare, to which they could gain the support of a large part of the population in such countries as France and Italy (the communist parties in these two countries were very strong in the post-war period).
The US was working its way out of isolationism throughout 1941, and sometime in 1942 likely would have gone to war against Germany. This is when the Germans were still countered by a Soviet power that could somewhat balance them. Now the Soviets have invaded all of Europe to become sole hegemon? You can bet the US will gear up for that fight.
The US emerged from isolationism because the public was concerned about the fall of France and the aggressive policy of Japan in East Asia. If France did not fall, and Japan did not end up in French Indochina, they would not see the need to get involved directly. At most, they would benefit the allies of material and financial support.
I looked for accurate comparisons between the Far East Front and Kwantung Army in 1942, if you have a source to prove that I'd be very interested.
In 1943, the Kwantung Army numbered less than 800,000. soldiers. Opposite her, despite the maximum engagement on the Eastern Front, there were permanent Soviet troops with more than 3 million soldiers. The Soviets also had a huge advantage in the number of tanks. I think that the Japanese attack on the USSR would be suicide.
 
Last edited:
I think the outcomes you suggest are possible, but the way you get there seems a little implausible to me. If you want a slower European war than the one that took place in 1940 with the UK and France coming out on top, then no Munich and war with Czechoslovakia sounds like a better bet then handwaving some espionage stuff. Equally, you could probably have the Red Army push further and Communism dominate Europe through some combination of a more isolationist US and Britain making peace after the Battle of France. After Barbarossa, the Red Army could reach the atlantic coast of Europe, and install Communist governments throughout the continent, which would probably be in a better position to last given that they would enter as liberators rather than conquerors, and there would be no immediate threat of a new war with the US.

I am not convinced Stalin would act in the way you're suggesting. The man was a genocidal tyrant, but he wasn't some mastermind bent on world domination. He was mainly interested in preserving the USSR and his leadership of it. That was why he took over Eastern Europe after WW2, to act as a buffer for the Soviets. He'd already have that in this scenario, so I don't see why he would risk a far larger war for relatively little gain, especially without the experience ofo Barbarossa, which informed his foreign policy heavily in the post war years.
 
Top