Soviet further West than OTL after WWII; what about Asia?

Let's suppose Stalin manages to go further West than OTL (maybe the Rhine, Austria and bits of Jutland); how would the supplementary territory taken in Europe influe on the war in Asia?

Would Japan surrender sooner, fearing to be invaded by the Soviet Union? Would Mao win sooner? Or will the additional need of men in Europe make Mao weaker thn OTL?
 
You forgot a "I" in the title. I came into this thread thinking it would be another "No Miracle on the Vistula" sort of thread.

In any case, the PoD that gets the Soviets to the Rhine is gonna matter. D-Day failing is gonna have a different effect then, for example, the Germans borking up Barbarossa worse then they did OTL. If it's the former, then the differences shouldn't be too severe: Mao actually didn't get that much from the Soviets just before and during the Civil War, particularly in comparison to what Chiang got from the Americans, because they didn't think he'd win and found him more independent minded then Stalin was comfortable with.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The US and UK will be freaking out for sure and France and Italy might go communist post-war due to Soviet influence. Cold War starts in 1945 if the Soviets don't withdraw East.
 
You forgot a "I" in the title. I came into this thread thinking it would be another "No Miracle on the Vistula" sort of thread.

Title corrected.

If it's the former, then the differences shouldn't be too severe: Mao actually didn't get that much from the Soviets just before and during the Civil War, particularly in comparison to what Chiang got from the Americans, because they didn't think he'd win and found him more independent minded then Stalin was comfortable with.

And what about the latter scenario?
 
The US and UK will be freaking out for sure and France and Italy might go communist post-war due to Soviet influence. Cold War starts in 1945 if the Soviets don't withdraw East.

Stalin's liable to give them a occupation zone in West Germany, albeit one denuded of industry and with communist agents left behind, as a token to their concerns. He believed confrontation with the west was inevitable, but didn't expect the post-war breakdown to be quite as quick as it was OTL so he did make efforts to cooperate with them in the expectation that the USSR could get some reconstruction aid out of it. He likely would IATL for the same reason.

And what about the latter scenario?

Harder to predict. A Barbarossa which crumbles much further west see's the acceleration of not only the Soviet advance, but the end of the war in Europe by 1-2 years, which means a corresponding Soviet invasion of Manchuria 1-2 years earlier then OTL. The Japanese aren't likely to up and surrender until the bomb comes down on them, though, so one can question how long the Soviets will stick around in northern China before they palm it off to Chiang, Mao, or a mix of the two.

Korea will be fully red, that's for sure. So no Korean War and a less crazy DPRK (which, ultimately, means a better off North Korea but a worse off South Korea by today's time).
 
Let's suppose Stalin manages to go further West than OTL (maybe the Rhine, Austria and bits of Jutland); how would the supplementary territory taken in Europe influe on the war in Asia?

You have to explain how that happens. Germany was going to defend itself in all directions. If the Soviets reached central Poland before the US/UK landed in France, the Germans would strip the Atlantic Wall to shore up the Eastern Front. Then when OVERLORD went forward, the Allies would drive inland at once - and as OTL, the Allies would enter Germany from the east and west at the same time.

Soviet advances were very constrained by their logistical system - they outran supply after a few hundred kilometers and would have to pause for months. So I can't see the Soviets making one big surge that would carry from Poland to the Rhine while the US/UK is still mired in western France.
 
Top