Russia Divided After Successful Axis Invasion?

Hey Guys,

I've had an idea in my head lately about an AH in which the Axis Invasion of the Soviet Union is successful. Without going into huge detail, the Soviets have to fight in Europe against their OTL enemies, the Far East against a Japan that's had a semi-victory in China (in which all islands captured are ceded to Japan, and the Wang Jingwei regime and Mengjiang United Autonomous Government are recognized by the remnants of China in return for a peace). Alongside this Turkey is attacking the Caucasus, and Britain is on the side of the Axis (whether you think this is ASB or not isn't relevant for this thread). Thus Iran is part of the axis also, and the Soviets invade Iran and Afghanistan. British troops go to support these nations and manage it, while putting Iraq under de facto British rule.

These multiple fronts cause the Soviets to collapse (with Stalin being captured in Moscow by the Germans), especially without any allied help (with America being isolationist without any main allies in Europe left). Though the Soviets have still scored some heavy casualties mainly against Japan, though also Germany and to a lesser extent Britain (who was mainly defending Afghanistan and Iran and the Empire).

Now, I'd like ideas for the peace treaty and aftermath of the peace treaty. The obvious one is that Germany is ceded up to the Ural Mountains, Romania is ceded Transnistria while Finland gains the Karelo-Finnish SSR and the Murmansk Oblast. I could also see in the Far East Mongolia becoming a Japanese puppet, and most Soviet Islands in the region being transferred to Japanese control (alongside northern Sakhalin). But how else would Russia be 'split'? I was thinking possibly the Central Asian SSR's being given independence to act as huge 'buffer-states' between the rump Soviet Union and the British Empire and other Axis nations. If you think this is possible, considering the humiliating loss the Russians suffered, then what would be the after-effects of this peace treaty? I believe that such a harsh treaty would lead to a civil war, probably between three main factions: The Communists, the Republicans and the Monarchists who may support Vladimir Cyrillovich being placed as Tsar.

If a civil war did occur, I can guess we'd see the Communists still win, but might we see Russia further divided by the factions, for example a portion of Russia becoming an 'Empire' or something to that effect?

So what are your thoughts here?
 
The problem with this is that is ASB. Any post-war territorial settlement would be political in nature - i.e. carving up the former USSR amoung the victors. Given the nature of the Axis in WWII, this would invariably lead to what might be called horse-trading, and would be deeply political. It would involve more than just the USSR, and would be global nature - i.e. the alt-British saying to the Nazis and Turks - 'If you let us have Baku, we'll make sure you get tin from Malaya' - that kind of thing.

So in order to do this, a understanding of the politics is necessary - i.e. why do Britain and Turkey join with Germany and Japan in carving up the USSR? Assuming Hitlerite Germany and Japan are the same (almost) as OTL, what are Turkey and Britain's motivations for doing this? Just pure anti-communism? That's vaguely plausible, but would fly directly in Britain's centuries-old policy of keeping the continent divided and not dominated by any one power.

Beyond that there's thw whole military aspect - i.e. could that coalition defeat the USSR; why the USA is letting this happen, etc.

Mike Turcotte
 
The problem with this is that is ASB. Any post-war territorial settlement would be political in nature - i.e. carving up the former USSR amoung the victors. Given the nature of the Axis in WWII, this would invariably lead to what might be called horse-trading, and would be deeply political. It would involve more than just the USSR, and would be global nature - i.e. the alt-British saying to the Nazis and Turks - 'If you let us have Baku, we'll make sure you get tin from Malaya' - that kind of thing.

So in order to do this, a understanding of the politics is necessary - i.e. why do Britain and Turkey join with Germany and Japan in carving up the USSR? Assuming Hitlerite Germany and Japan are the same (almost) as OTL, what are Turkey and Britain's motivations for doing this? Just pure anti-communism? That's vaguely plausible, but would fly directly in Britain's centuries-old policy of keeping the continent divided and not dominated by any one power.

Beyond that there's thw whole military aspect - i.e. could that coalition defeat the USSR; why the USA is letting this happen, etc.

Mike Turcotte

To briefly explain this, Britain comes under the rule of Oswald Mosley and thus a fascist dictatorship (I know this is basically ASB, but it's basically the only way to get Britain involved). This Britain isn't Nazi, thus not heavily anti-semitic, it's much more like Mussolini's fascism with a smattering of anti-semitism. It's protectionist but is also anti-communist, thus feels that the Soviet Union is a threat to the Empire (the Raj mainly), and thus it needs to be heavily put-down. Turkey declares war a bit after the other fronts have opened, as they are pressured by the Axis into declaring war on the Soviets (even though they do have worse military technology).

The war begins a year earlier, without a Munich Conference being needed or an interventionist Britain to worry about Hitler is able to pretty much do everything he did IOTL without war beginning (this includes the partitioning of Poland). Thus most things occur a year earlier but go on as per OTL really (though the Greek Invasion is made easier without any Allied help). Alongside this Spain and Portugal join the Axis in return for French holdings in Africa and the fact that Britain is on the Axis side now.

Thus when Operation Barbarossa occurs, it occurs around a year earlier with much better armies (for example, the Royal Navy is on the Axis side, and the air forces are much better preserved). Alongside this many more volunteers go to enlist from all nations to tackle the Soviet Union. Alongside this Britain ensures certain things to Japan if they go for the Soviets also. From all this I could envisage that the Soviets would be beaten.

On the subject of America, well IOTL they were isolationist up until the war, when the lend-lease occurred. Now in this TL the only potential user of this lend-lease are the Soviets. But the Americans are much less inclined to give this to the Soviets and thus don't (or they do but in minimal amounts). Also, with oil, the Japanese don't need to attack the Americans yet due to the embargo against them. Thus the Americans don't take part in international affairs and stay in their own little 'bubble'.
 

Stalker

Banned
To briefly explain this, Britain comes under the rule of Oswald Mosley and thus a fascist dictatorship (I know this is basically ASB, but it's basically the only way to get Britain involved). This Britain isn't Nazi, thus not heavily anti-semitic, it's much more like Mussolini's fascism with a smattering of anti-semitism.
Well, you probably know that Italy adopted Nuremberg racial laws on 9 feb 1939? And that meant thet it started a chain-reaction of firing Jews from any high positions they had occupied because many Italian carrierists in the universities and schools saw those laws as the way to improver the positions of their own. And that was only the beginning of discrimination and deportations etc. It's a great mistake to think that Italian Fascism was 'soft' on the Jews.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well, you probably know that Italy adopted Nuremberg racial laws on 9 feb 1939? And that meant thet it started a chain-reaction of firing Jews from any high positions they had occupied because many Italian carrierists in the universities and schools saw those laws as the way to improver the positions of their own. And that was only the beginning of discrimination and deportations etc. It's a great mistake to think that Italian Fascism was 'soft' on the Jews.

Actually, the Italian Fascist racial laws were adopted between September and November 1938, but yeah.
 
I could also imagine German controlled regions west of Moscow, a Rump USSR in the Urals, and Siberia and the Far East under Japanese control with a puppet Romanov monarchy similar to Manchukuo's. Comments?
 
To briefly explain this, Britain comes under the rule of Oswald Mosley and thus a fascist dictatorship (I know this is basically ASB, but it's basically the only way to get Britain involved). This Britain isn't Nazi, thus not heavily anti-semitic, it's much more like Mussolini's fascism with a smattering of anti-semitism. It's protectionist but is also anti-communist, thus feels that the Soviet Union is a threat to the Empire (the Raj mainly), and thus it needs to be heavily put-down. Turkey declares war a bit after the other fronts have opened, as they are pressured by the Axis into declaring war on the Soviets (even though they do have worse military technology).

OK - this is ASB, but OK.

The war begins a year earlier, without a Munich Conference being needed or an interventionist Britain to worry about Hitler is able to pretty much do everything he did IOTL without war beginning (this includes the partitioning of Poland). Thus most things occur a year earlier but go on as per OTL really (though the Greek Invasion is made easier without any Allied help). Alongside this Spain and Portugal join the Axis in return for French holdings in Africa and the fact that Britain is on the Axis side now.

This is ASB as well. Why would France, Greece - heck ANYONE oppose this Nazi Germany-Italy-Britain alliance? France and the USSR are going to run to each others' arms as fast as possible, so no partition of Poland, no Nazi-Soviet Deal, no Balkan campaign, nothing. This is totally changed. The French - assuming they fight at all (and they have no friends, so why would they) - will embrace the USSR out of sheer geopolitical necessity. Stalin will freak as well. Why he might want to avoid conflict (as in OTL), the odds are much more stacked against him, and he'll know it. Maybe no purges. Certainly no illusions of friendship with the Germans. From the start, the Red Army will be frantically arming, and probably on hair-trigger alert too.

Both France and the USSR will also reach out to America. America's isolationism was based in part on the fact that the friendly RN controlled (or was percieved to control) the Atlantic, which shielded the US. If Britain is now a hostile power, the US will get into the 'great game' as it were.

Thus when Operation Barbarossa occurs, it occurs around a year earlier with much better armies (for example, the Royal Navy is on the Axis side, and the air forces are much better preserved).

It is unclear to me how the RN assists in an invasion of the USSR, unless it stops US aid on the high seas, at which point it will need to engage the USN.

Alongside this many more volunteers go to enlist from all nations to tackle the Soviet Union. Alongside this Britain ensures certain things to Japan if they go for the Soviets also. From all this I could envisage that the Soviets would be beaten.

As many would fight against fascism. I can see Winston Churchill in exile in Canada roaring defiance at London.

On the subject of America, well IOTL they were isolationist up until the war, when the lend-lease occurred. Now in this TL the only potential user of this lend-lease are the Soviets. But the Americans are much less inclined to give this to the Soviets and thus don't (or they do but in minimal amounts). Also, with oil, the Japanese don't need to attack the Americans yet due to the embargo against them. Thus the Americans don't take part in international affairs and stay in their own little 'bubble'.

I addressed this above. If Britain goes fascist, at the very least America will recognize and support a 'Republic of Canada' and independence for British possessions in the New World. Should Mosley oppose this, he will find himself in a shooting war with the USN - a shooting war Britain will, in all likelihood loose.

Keep in mind - American isolationism was based in part on faith in the British to maintain global order. If that faith goes away, so too does American isolationism.

Mike Turcotte
 

Eurofed

Banned
This is ASB as well. Why would France, Greece - heck ANYONE oppose this Nazi Germany-Italy-Britain alliance? France and the USSR are going to run to each others' arms as fast as possible, so no partition of Poland, no Nazi-Soviet Deal, no Balkan campaign, nothing. This is totally changed. The French - assuming they fight at all (and they have no friends, so why would they) - will embrace the USSR out of sheer geopolitical necessity. Stalin will freak as well. Why he might want to avoid conflict (as in OTL), the odds are much more stacked against him, and he'll know it. Maybe no purges. Certainly no illusions of friendship with the Germans. From the start, the Red Army will be frantically arming, and probably on hair-trigger alert too.

Both France and the USSR will also reach out to America. America's isolationism was based in part on the fact that the friendly RN controlled (or was percieved to control) the Atlantic, which shielded the US. If Britain is now a hostile power, the US will get into the 'great game' as it were.



It is unclear to me how the RN assists in an invasion of the USSR, unless it stops US aid on the high seas, at which point it will need to engage the USN.



As many would fight against fascism. I can see Winston Churchill in exile in Canada roaring defiance at London.



I addressed this above. If Britain goes fascist, at the very least America will recognize and support a 'Republic of Canada' and independence for British possessions in the New World. Should Mosley oppose this, he will find himself in a shooting war with the USN - a shooting war Britain will, in all likelihood loose.

Keep in mind - American isolationism was based in part on faith in the British to maintain global order. If that faith goes away, so too does American isolationism.

I'm in general agreement. I would just point out that historically, interwar France had much stronger fascist tendencies (later realized by Vichy) than Britain. So if there is a PoD strong enough to make Britain go fascist (I'd tentatively suggest a combo of the general strike going really bad, the depression hitting Britain somewhat harder than OTL, the Soviet Union looking more successful in the interwar period -perhaps the Republicans wins the Civil War in Spain with Soviet assistance-, maybe we may throw an Indian independence movement going somewhat more radical), I find it rather strange that it is not making France go fascist as well.

Hmm, perhaps a fascist colation of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy allied with Japan against Russia and America ?
 
MikeTurcotte had gotten my thoughts in a nutshell, so I'll just address a couple of specific things:

Making the central Asian republic independant: somewhat dubious. They'd been reshuffled incessantly throughout the 20s and 30s and their national identities were still being stamped on them by Soviet policy. A state set up by the Axis here would presumably be fascist, and so based on the sort of vague pan-Turkist pseudo-Islamism of the exiled intellectuals hanging about in Poland, rather than the decades-long tradition of Great Soviet Kyrgyzstan.

Monarchists? In the 40s? Where did they spring from? No political and propaganda organs existed in the USSR to mobilise support for a Romanov. Their only chance in hell is to be imposed by the conqueror - and I've never really understood the appeal for Germany of setting up a symbol of old-style Slav nationalism on the ruins of the defeated Untermensch.

I don't, indeed, really see why the Soviets would respond to national disaster and the slaughter of their compatriots on the more populated side of the Urals by slaughtering one another. Not that Stalin's death wouldn't cause the potential leaders of some Siberian rump to eye one-another jealously, but a fat lot of good taking over will do them if everyone's dead.

Another thought: why assume that any fascist regime will slavishly follow Germany in its foreign policy? For Italy, co-operation with Germany was a matter of strategic logic (as it turned out, bad strategic logic, but oh well) and Mussolini and Hitler had been on very bad terms in, say, 1934. I don't see why Mosley wouldn't just defend British interests against German revisionism that much more energetically. It's hardly inevitable - the man was himself pro-German and anti-communist, true - but there's lots of ways for things to go besides an ASB level of convergence.

Ed Thomas has written a spiffing timeline, "A Greater Britain", which is a realistic take on Mosley coming to power (legally, through Labour) and remaking Britain according to some of his corporatist ideas. I won't spoil what happens with Hitler and Stalin, but it'd rather differant from your scenario, shall we say.
 
Well, you probably know that Italy adopted Nuremberg racial laws on 9 feb 1939? And that meant thet it started a chain-reaction of firing Jews from any high positions they had occupied because many Italian carrierists in the universities and schools saw those laws as the way to improver the positions of their own. And that was only the beginning of discrimination and deportations etc. It's a great mistake to think that Italian Fascism was 'soft' on the Jews.
Well, though I'm not sure on it, from my own knowledge I thought the Italians didn't cooperate in the Holocaust and all that fully until the RSI was set up. Though I of course may be very wrong, I don't really know.
This is ASB as well. Why would France, Greece - heck ANYONE oppose this Nazi Germany-Italy-Britain alliance? France and the USSR are going to run to each others' arms as fast as possible, so no partition of Poland, no Nazi-Soviet Deal, no Balkan campaign, nothing. This is totally changed. The French - assuming they fight at all (and they have no friends, so why would they) - will embrace the USSR out of sheer geopolitical necessity. Stalin will freak as well. Why he might want to avoid conflict (as in OTL), the odds are much more stacked against him, and he'll know it. Maybe no purges. Certainly no illusions of friendship with the Germans. From the start, the Red Army will be frantically arming, and probably on hair-trigger alert too.

Both France and the USSR will also reach out to America. America's isolationism was based in part on the fact that the friendly RN controlled (or was percieved to control) the Atlantic, which shielded the US. If Britain is now a hostile power, the US will get into the 'great game' as it were.



It is unclear to me how the RN assists in an invasion of the USSR, unless it stops US aid on the high seas, at which point it will need to engage the USN.



As many would fight against fascism. I can see Winston Churchill in exile in Canada roaring defiance at London.



I addressed this above. If Britain goes fascist, at the very least America will recognize and support a 'Republic of Canada' and independence for British possessions in the New World. Should Mosley oppose this, he will find himself in a shooting war with the USN - a shooting war Britain will, in all likelihood loose.

Keep in mind - American isolationism was based in part on faith in the British to maintain global order. If that faith goes away, so too does American isolationism.

Mike Turcotte
It's not so much that Greece and France opposed them, it's just that Greece is obviously part of Mussolini's 'New Rome' idea, while France has bits of land that Germany and Italy want. It also isn't fascist and thus could be seen as an ally of the Soviet Union (especially as in their legislature the French had a group of communists and socialist parties in the majority). Also it allowed for Italy and Britain to carve up the French Empire. And with the Soviet Union, I take your point, though I don't understand why Stalin wouldn't go ahead with the purges? As I say below, I'm not good on Soviet politics though.

I would've thought the Royal Navy may've been able to help in possible blockades of cities, helped supply certain lines along the coast and also allowed for any possible amphibious landings anywhere.

Good points on America. Though as this is kind of based on 'The Leader' (see below), people such as Churchill have been locked up and thus wouldn't be able to escape, though obviously I see your point about a 'Republic of Canada'. Seeing as the Canadian PM was opposed to Edward VIII marrying Simpson anyway, with a fascist government we would likely see something such as the Republic of Canada. So yes I do take your points.
I'm in general agreement. I would just point out that historically, interwar France had much stronger fascist tendencies (later realized by Vichy) than Britain. So if there is a PoD strong enough to make Britain go fascist (I'd tentatively suggest a combo of the general strike going really bad, the depression hitting Britain somewhat harder than OTL, the Soviet Union looking more successful in the interwar period -perhaps the Republicans wins the Civil War in Spain with Soviet assistance-, maybe we may throw an Indian independence movement going somewhat more radical), I find it rather strange that it is not making France go fascist as well.

Hmm, perhaps a fascist colation of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy allied with Japan against Russia and America ?
I've based the way Mosley gains power through the book by Guy Walters, 'The Leader' (though a little tweaked). In which basically the abdication crisis with Edward VIII leads to no government forming, there are numerous elections called during which time strikes and riots occur. People become frustrated and either don't vote or vote for the BUF, Communists or 'Kings Party' set up by Churchill. Then Edward VIII (whom OTL supposedly got on with Mosley) asks Mosley to set up a government. Mosley gets a bill passed that allows for a five-man cabinet to have near-full executive powers until the nations calms down. This happens, but power isn't given back. Also it's effectively a putsch, as I said above about how numerous MPs are arrested in one night by Blackshirt thugs. ASB I know, but I already admitted it could be seen as ASB.
Monarchists? In the 40s? Where did they spring from? No political and propaganda organs existed in the USSR to mobilise support for a Romanov. Their only chance in hell is to be imposed by the conqueror - and I've never really understood the appeal for Germany of setting up a symbol of old-style Slav nationalism on the ruins of the defeated Untermensch.

I don't, indeed, really see why the Soviets would respond to national disaster and the slaughter of their compatriots on the more populated side of the Urals by slaughtering one another. Not that Stalin's death wouldn't cause the potential leaders of some Siberian rump to eye one-another jealously, but a fat lot of good taking over will do them if everyone's dead.

Another thought: why assume that any fascist regime will slavishly follow Germany in its foreign policy? For Italy, co-operation with Germany was a matter of strategic logic (as it turned out, bad strategic logic, but oh well) and Mussolini and Hitler had been on very bad terms in, say, 1934. I don't see why Mosley wouldn't just defend British interests against German revisionism that much more energetically. It's hardly inevitable - the man was himself pro-German and anti-communist, true - but there's lots of ways for things to go besides an ASB level of convergence.

Ed Thomas has written a spiffing timeline, "A Greater Britain", which is a realistic take on Mosley coming to power (legally, through Labour) and remaking Britain according to some of his corporatist ideas. I won't spoil what happens with Hitler and Stalin, but it'd rather differant from your scenario, shall we say.
The point about monarchists is simply an uneducated guess really, I have no idea about Soviet politics around this time I will admit. So on those points I have no real idea, which is why I posted this thread.

On the point about Mosley being pro-German, I in fact hate the idea myself. I wrote a thread about it last year denouncing the possibility of Mosley being pro-German. It's just that, if he ever did get in power as a fascist PM, obviously one possible way to go is to join the Axis. Though I believe this is highly unlikely.

Also I have begun to read EdT's TL and it's very good, though the situations are different, in my mind this whole thread is based on the book 'The Leader', which shows Mosley to be pro-Germany and all that.
 
The people who created Hearts of Iron would suggest something like this.


dividedsoviet.png
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Some scraps ceded to allies. Permanent Japanese presence east of Amur river? (Annexation or puppet regime?) Germany occupies Russia West of Urals for some decades until they realize that they don't really know what to do with all that territory and that occupying it drain a lot of manpower (think after the death of Hitler). Then probably establishment of puppet regimes (could have happened earlier in Caucasus and the Ukraine).
 
I would like to make entirely clear that Nazi occupation of the USSR before the Urals for even 5-10 years would still be mass-murder on an unprecedented scale, killing at the bare minimum a quarter of the whole population and probably more. That's not just a matter of concentration camps and gas chambers (not that the Jews and others are escaping them, of course), but of the gigantic agricultural breakdown caused by the partisan war and the resulting famines - besides of course the effects of the partisan war itself, with its village burnings, food theft, and gigantic decline in births.

Sorry, but people tend to talk about "occupation", "guerillas", "withdrawal" and so on in this context very offhandly, as if it were a normal war and not a campaign of extermination against the Soviet peoples.
 
Top