Hello!
I'm currently reading a book titled New Hokkaido. It's a New Zealand alternate history set in a world where the Japanese won their side of the war and turned New Zealand into a colony. It's not the most plausible scenario (or really at all), but it's a fun read.
The author briefly mentions the rest of the world. Basically his idea is that whoever was the top dog in Japan has a 'vision' of nuclear fire before the bombing of Pearl Harbour, and so the whole thing is called off, leading to a neutral US. In Europe, the Soviets wind up pouring across Germany without help and making it all the way to Portugal. Britain becomes essentially an economic puppet of the US (presumably along with Ireland, which is mentioned as still being neutral).
My questions are not about the plausibility of this scenario. I know it's absurd, but it's absurdity in service of a fun story, so I'm okay with that. My questions are about what Soviet Europe is really going to look like.
Namely;
- How respectful of neutral states would the USSR be, such as Switzerland? If the Soviets have invaded everywhere all the way to the Atlantic, would they also throw troops into the Alps, or would they leave the Swiss alone?
- What are they likely to do with the European microstates? Countries like Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, and Andorra - would they remain independent, or do you think the Soviets would fold them into their 'ethnic homelands'?
- Similar to the above, what of Germany? Will the Soviets move to keep Austria separate again, or will they fold it in with the rest of Germany in an ethnic homeland? Or will they break Germany into pieces in revenge? Presumably Barbarossa was a lot worse ITTL, but the author doesn't mention it.
- Are there any parts of eastern (or anywhere really) Europe that the Soviets might have had an interest in annexing outright, for economic or military reasons?
Thanks for any help.
I'm currently reading a book titled New Hokkaido. It's a New Zealand alternate history set in a world where the Japanese won their side of the war and turned New Zealand into a colony. It's not the most plausible scenario (or really at all), but it's a fun read.
The author briefly mentions the rest of the world. Basically his idea is that whoever was the top dog in Japan has a 'vision' of nuclear fire before the bombing of Pearl Harbour, and so the whole thing is called off, leading to a neutral US. In Europe, the Soviets wind up pouring across Germany without help and making it all the way to Portugal. Britain becomes essentially an economic puppet of the US (presumably along with Ireland, which is mentioned as still being neutral).
My questions are not about the plausibility of this scenario. I know it's absurd, but it's absurdity in service of a fun story, so I'm okay with that. My questions are about what Soviet Europe is really going to look like.
Namely;
- How respectful of neutral states would the USSR be, such as Switzerland? If the Soviets have invaded everywhere all the way to the Atlantic, would they also throw troops into the Alps, or would they leave the Swiss alone?
- What are they likely to do with the European microstates? Countries like Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, and Andorra - would they remain independent, or do you think the Soviets would fold them into their 'ethnic homelands'?
- Similar to the above, what of Germany? Will the Soviets move to keep Austria separate again, or will they fold it in with the rest of Germany in an ethnic homeland? Or will they break Germany into pieces in revenge? Presumably Barbarossa was a lot worse ITTL, but the author doesn't mention it.
- Are there any parts of eastern (or anywhere really) Europe that the Soviets might have had an interest in annexing outright, for economic or military reasons?
Thanks for any help.