Soveit-Nazi Alliance

Imthatguy

Banned
(If this idea seems i little underdeveloped it because this is my first post))

What if Operation Barbarossa never happened and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union became close allies?

Would the US entrance into the alliance be enough to still tip the scales in the Alliance's favor?
 
well, even without getting into other threads, let me sum up the general consensus of the situation as well as the strengths and weakneses of the Soviets and the Western powers:

If the US enters the war and stays tough, the bad guys lose.

If the US doesn't enter the war or quits before things finish up, the bad guys lose still, it just takes a few decades in stead.

for more details and discussion, use the search option
 
The proposition that the US could defeat Germany and the Soviet Union together is quite ridiculous, Even with 90 % German strength on the Eastern front, it still took the US main-force one year to get to West Germany.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
I don't visit here much anymore, so I will just start with this one:

Even if we stray into ASB-land and assume that Germany will never break the alliance, eventually, if the Soviets see a huge advantage, they would still attack Germany. Now, how many year that would take to have occur, no one knows.

But, the Germans will attack the Soviets, it is only a matter of time.
 
The presumption that Stalin was entirely trusting of Germany is false.

The Soviets and Germans would be fighting eventually in the long run,any alliance would just be so the could destroy their common enemy-Capitalism meanwhile they would both be plotting to get rid of the other.
 
I have to agree that any long-term alliance between the two is impossible. There is nothing holding them together other than a desire to gain some extra preparation for the war against the other.

A peace is possible, with a POD before or after Barbarossa, but it would be a constantly simmering peace with both sides poised for conflict.
 

Xen

Banned
The only thing the two of them together could do is dominate Europe really, and from there the Middle East and perhaps even China. I doubt they could successfully cross the English Channel, and they sure as hell arent going to cross the Atlantic, and and invasion of the US from Alaska isn't likely to succeed.
 

General Zod

Banned
The only thing the two of them together could do is dominate Europe really, and from there the Middle East and perhaps even China. I doubt they could successfully cross the English Channel, and they sure as hell arent going to cross the Atlantic, and and invasion of the US from Alaska isn't likely to succeed.

First of all, I'm going to assume that, notwithstanding political differences to the contrary, ITTL Nazi and Soviet leaderships have enough commont sense to avoid backstabbing each other at least as long as they have a common enemy to fight, otherwise, it defies the whole purpose of the exercise.

Let's assume that either the Soviets join the Axis in late 1939 (either because the Franco-British DoW the Soviets when they invade Polony, or they bomb Baku or intervene in Finland and the Soviets DoW them), or in late 1940, when the German-Soviet negotiations to enlarge the Axis to the USSR are successful.

Let's also assume that the USA join the British in a timeframe running from late 1940 to late 1941, for various reasons (e.g. naval clashes with the Axis in the Atlantic or Japan attacking South East Asia). With the USSR in the Axis, American isolationism shall be significantly weakened.

A Nazi-Soviet-Italian alliance would be the undisputed master of Continental Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.

It is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely that the Americans could amass and land enough troops in North Africa in time to prevent the British from being overrun and the Axis from entrenching in the area and turning the Mediterranean in its own lake.

I don't think there are any realistic chances that the Allies could avoid the loss of the Middle East to the Soviet onslaught (esp. because neither Turky nor Vichy France would be in a position to refuse opening their borders, ports, and airports, to the transit of Axis troops in Turkey and Syria).

The Anglo-Americans may have better chances to keep India (even if significant chunks of the North shall likely be overrun by the Soviets and Japanese) IF Indian nationalist movement decides to stay loyal to the Allies as it did IOTL.

A Nazi-Soviet combination of forces makes a successful Sealion a realistic outcome, just as it is the A-A successfully defending the British Isles from landing attempts. It shall be a tight race between the Axis and the Allies accumlating enough local air-naval power to allow or defeat the landing.

A successful conventional Overlord is extremely unlikely, as it is a successful Allied landing in mainland Italy, even in the (remote) chance they could ever manage to secure North Africa. The Allies would have at best air and equipment parity and naval superiority vs. manpower inferiority. They could maybe manage to secure sizable portions of western Iberia or Scandinavia, or possibly in Greece/Turkey in the unlikely case of an Allied North Africa, but they could never use them to make substantial inroads in Continental Europe, and with the Axis tapping Soviet natural resources and Middle Eastern oil, the amount of damage the Allies could make from their peripheral footholds (say by bombing Swedish ironfileds or Romanian oilfields) is questionable at best. Any such Allied footholds would most likely become huge Anzios, a drain of resources for both sides.

Most of China would fall to a Soviet-Japanese alliance, even if guerrilla would continue.

However, no matter how much the Axis would hold the advantage in the conventional field, the A-A hold the ultimate ace in the hole in terms of the Project Manhattan. The Axis shall never be able to match them in time here.

Hence, the most realistic outcome is the Axis securing Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, and temporarily overrunning South East Asia. The Allies achieve a stalemate in India. China falls to the Axis, even if guerrilla continues with smuggled Allied weapons. The Axis fails to land in the British Isles (but they have a decent chance of succes, with some preparation, so it's not a given), and the Allies fail to land in continental Europe (at best they secure some footholds in Portugal and Norway, but they fail to expand them). The Allies slowly reconquer the Pacific and South East Asia. At the end of the 1940s, the Americans have amassed so many nukes that they are able to overwhelm Axis anti-air defenses and nuke the Axis into submission. Unless a) the Axis pulls a Sealion before, or b) they achieve a rudimental MAD by blackmailing Britain with nerve/radiological warhead missiles. In the latter case, it is a strategical stalemate, which ushers in the Cold War.
 
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were never allies. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a neutrality agreement and no more made them allies then the Munich Pact made Britain and Germany allies.
 
The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were never allies. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a neutrality agreement and no more made them allies then the Munich Pact made Britain and Germany allies.

Yes.. we know. This thread is speculating on the possibility of a full fledged Nazi-Soviet alliance.

Let's say we get past both Hitler and Stalin's mutal mistrust of each other and get them to commit together to a war against the capitalists.

As soon as Britain and France are down, one side will inevitably betray the other. Question is who will it be?
 

General Zod

Banned
As soon as Britain and France are down, one side will inevitably betray the other. Question is who will it be?

True, but not going to happen if America joins the fray before Britain falls. Given that it's going to take some years before the Nazi-Soviets can prepare a successful Sealion, that is a distinct possibiliy, esp. if Japan starts to act up in South East Asia, even short of Pearl Harbor antics. A Nazi-Communist alliance would weaken American isolationism.

On the other hand, it is quite possible that Britain would surrender when France falls and it loses North Africa and the Middle East to the uber-Axis. British patriotic defiance spirit and the grip of Churchill and the war party on the Parliament and public opinion was not inexaustible, in the face of mounting defeats and apparently insourmountable odds (make no mistake, if USA don't join this war, Britain is doomed, in the end Germany and Russia shall manage to outbuild the resources of Britain alone and blockade or invade the British Isles).
 
Last edited:
Yes.. we know. This thread is speculating on the possibility of a full fledged Nazi-Soviet alliance.

Let's say we get past both Hitler and Stalin's mutal mistrust of each other and get them to commit together to a war against the capitalists.

As soon as Britain and France are down, one side will inevitably betray the other. Question is who will it be?

If the Allies are defeated before 1943 then Germany

If the Aliies are defeated after 1943 then the USSR
 
to anybody who thinks that a prolonged Soviet Nazi alliance would reverse the fortunes of WWII, keep in mind that as long as the hitler we know is running the show in Germany such a thing is just not possible. Stalin may have been pragmatic enough to play nice, but Hitler was too hard wired to do stuff which the Soviets were in the way of. So this situation requires someone else to be the Furer to be even remotely realistic, and that means a very different picture of Europe.

A Nazi-Soviet combination of forces makes a successful Sealion a realistic outcome, just as it is the A-A successfully defending the British Isles from landing attempts. It shall be a tight race between the Axis and the Allies accumlating enough local air-naval power to allow or defeat the landing.

What is your basis for this? Even with the vast resources and manpower added to the war against the west, the Soviets still can't do much to help the Germans get across the channel. AFAIK the Russian Navy was never that much of a factor during the war, although they had a couple battleships, they had no carriers, and they only had like 3 or 4 ports that weren't iced in for like half the year anyway. I doubt that the Russians would be able to allow the Kreigsmarine to tip the balance against the RN alone, let alone with the USN helping out. Also, in order for the Red Army to take part in Sealion you would need the Germans to allow tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops to pass through German territory, which I don't see that as being anything but ASB. And even with that, a Red Army that hasn't learned its lessons against the Wermacht would be little more than cannon fodder on the beaches of Dover anyway. One last thing is that you would also need the Germans to design and produce a large number of reliable landing craft to accomodate all of the troops needed for the operation, since I am scheptical of the notion that the river barges were a viable landing craft substitute.
 
The war will depend on some factors. If the Soviets can travel through Poland and Germany to help the Nazis on the Western front, Europe is really no contest, but this isn't assured. Even if Hitler and Stalin were militarily allied, I don't know if they'd trust the other to send an army through their territory, it'd be more of a "Lets fight them in our own areas and share resources" agreement.

If the entrance of the USSR is the Winter War, then there could be a possibility of France not falling to Germany. In December, 1939, Sweden and Norway officially declare their support of Finland in the war. Churchill announces that he'd send troops to fight in Finland if the Soviets don't pull out (Finland has to ask fro help and the Norwegians and Swedes have to allow movement through their country). The Fins ask for help, the Soviets refuse to back down, and Britain lands troops in Norway (Primary goal is securing the Swedish Iron and shoring Sweden's defenses then moving on to Finland). The Germans respond by invading Denmark and declaring war on Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

An invasion of Norway is no longer practical, but the Germans start an offensive against Sweden. The British move troops south to defend what is termed the "Lake Line," a natural defensive line that's easily defended. The Luftwaffe is seriously being tested by the RAF and has to hold back some of its fighter force to defend German cities (No civilian bombings yet, but it's very obvious to the Germans that the capability is there). Belgium, relieved to see France and Britain actually protecting an ally quietly starts preparing for French intervention in the lowlands.

The British bomb the Baku oil fields to prevent Soviet Oil from fueling Nazi engines. The USSR declares war on the Allies. No formal Alliance between Germany and the USSR is made, but a personal understanding between Hitler and Stalin is reached. FDR agrees to increase American material support to the Allied nations. Persia declares neutrality, but asks the British for protection, Indian divisions are prepared to intervene in Persia.

In March 1940, the Germans invade Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg in an effort to knock France out of the war before shifting the focus North. The Netherlands falls quickly, but met resistance in Belgium after failing to achieve total air superiority and the quick French reinforcement of Belgian positions. Hitler asked Mussolini to invade as well, but given Germany's position, Mussolini politely declined. Both sides settled in for a protracted war, terrified of what that may mean.

After that, the USSR is going to pull an invasion of Persia. The British troops in the region will be able to bleed the Soviets, but probably not stop them by themselves. But there are still a lot of possibilities. The Japanese can probably be convinced to attack the Soviets, the Americans can come in at some point, or they could receive relief after Hitler is "convinced" to step down and peace is made with the Germans (Two failed offensives, a prolonged war, and a friendship with the Soviets, Hitler won't be popular).
 

General Zod

Banned
Karl, your analysis is otherwise fine, but I don't really think it is too much realistic to assume that if TTL Hitler and Stalin are wise and sane enough to strike a productive long-term cooperation, the former would prefer to risk serious defeat in France rather than allow Soviet troops to cross Germany for the Western front. The man signed the M-R Pact, if he's pragmatic enough ITTL to make a full alliance effective, he would swallow the bitter pill if need be. IMO, with this Axis, continental Europe is always a lost case for the Allies unless and until they have the nukes, except in the case the USA join the war from the start, and hence can shore up the Western front in substantial numbers.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
to anybody who thinks that a prolonged Soviet Nazi alliance would reverse the fortunes of WWII, keep in mind that as long as the hitler we know is running the show in Germany such a thing is just not possible. Stalin may have been pragmatic enough to play nice, but Hitler was too hard wired to do stuff which the Soviets were in the way of. So this situation requires someone else to be the Furer to be even remotely realistic, and that means a very different picture of Europe.

A PoD that either makes Hitler somewhat more pragmatic, or puts another more pragmatic successor in place late enough for this alliance to blossom, is far from impossible. Remember, they signed the M-R pact and made serious negotiations to make it a full alliance in late 1940.

What is your basis for this? Even with the vast resources and manpower added to the war against the west, the Soviets still can't do much to help the Germans get across the channel. AFAIK the Russian Navy was never that much of a factor during the war, although they had a couple battleships, they had no carriers, and they only had like 3 or 4 ports that weren't iced in for like half the year anyway.

In the brief term, indeed, they cannot, because of the shortages you aptly describe. In the medium term, however, apart from fighting on the Persian/Indian front, and garrisoning the European/Mediterranean Fortress, what other avenue German-Soviet industrial war effort would have, apart from building air and naval power to seek local parity or supremacy in the North Sea, Channel, and Atlantic ?

I doubt that the Russians would be able to allow the Kreigsmarine to tip the balance against the RN alone, let alone with the USN helping out.

Well, with the USA in the fray (otherwise, Britain would be doomed, the Axis would surely outbuild Britain in a few years), it would be an interesting race to outbuild each other, between US-UK-Canada and GER-SOV-ITA-ViFRA. I agree that the most likely outcome is that the USA eventually outbuild the Axis, at least as much as it is necessary for them to keep supremacy in the Atlantic, and even quite likely around the British Isles. The latter is not a given outcome, however. I am somewhat even more dubious it would so easy or clear-cut for the Allies to achieve and keep air superiority in the British Isles theater, IMO it would be a tight race.

The Allies would have a significant but not substantial war-making potential superiority, in this war. According to Kennedy (referred to 1937, so they need to be taken with a little care, since they do not include the effects of stuff like Auschluss, but still a good picture of the respective coalition assets, it would be US-UK 52% (42% USA, 10% UK) of world total vs. 39% (15% Germany, 14% USSR, 3.5% Japan, 2.5% Italy, 4.0% Vichy France) of the Axis.

Also, in order for the Red Army to take part in Sealion you would need the Germans to allow tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops to pass through German territory, which I don't see that as being anything but ASB.

I think the point is questionable, especially as it concerns the lower end of your estimate, and anyway, there would be no objection to the concentration of Soviet air-naval power.

And even with that, a Red Army that hasn't learned its lessons against the Wermacht would be little more than cannon fodder on the beaches of Dover anyway.

Before the Axis can realistically engage in a Sealion, some years shall pass, and in the meanwhile, the Soviets shall see a lot of action in the Middle East and India.

One last thing is that you would also need the Germans to design and produce a large number of reliable landing craft to accomodate all of the troops needed for the operation, since I am scheptical of the notion that the river barges were a viable landing craft substitute.

Very true. This is one of the two main reasons (the other is the need to build up the German-Soviet air-naval power) why the Axis would need some years to prepare a Sealion with any chance of success.
 
Last edited:
Karl, your analysis is otherwise fine, but I don't really think it is too much realistic to assume that if TTL Hitler and Stalin are wise and sane enough to strike a productive long-term cooperation, the former would prefer to risk serious defeat in France rather than allow Soviet troops to cross Germany for the Western front. The man signed the M-R Pact, if he's pragmatic enough ITTL to make a full alliance effective, he would swallow the bitter pill if need be. IMO, with this Axis, continental Europe is always a lost case for the Allies unless and until they have the nukes, except in the case the USA join the war from the start, and hence can shore up the Western front in substantial numbers.

You may well be right, but there are a couple points that I was thinking about when I said that. First, in the scenario I laid out the USSR and Germany never made a formal alliance. The second point is that I don't think Hitler has time on his side in this scenario because of the internal politics. Aldolf had trouble enough convincing his generals and supporters to go to war in the first place and now he's expanded the war and has two stalled fronts. Asking the Soviets (Who themselves are a little busy) for help would exasperate the problem and basically be an admittance that he bit off more than he could chew.

I don't think Hitler would stay in office long enough to get significant help.
 
Top