Soviets Betray Nazis First?

So having reread Max Sinister's Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy, and seen some related scenarios involving better Axis success in that theater, I was wondering.

Would we have seen Stalin try and take advantage of the thinly-stretched Axis borders?

In Sinister's tl, Barbarossa is postponed until 1942. However, there are somethings I find implausible about this timeline. Namely, that Britain stays in the war after losing the Suez Canal AND simultaneously being attacked by Japan. I believe these two disasters would have pushed Britain over the edge; Parliament would have forced Churchill to negotiate with Hitler.

Even with America's entrance into the war, I find it difficult to believe that the British public could have ever been persuaded that victory was possible after losing Egypt, Singapore, and the great pressure on Australia and India.

With all that said, assuming the Brits agree to peace with Germany in December '41/early '42, is it not likely Stalin would have decided to attack Germany, knowing they were in a weak position and with the bulk of their forces scattered across Africa and the Middle East, an early spring strike across Eastern Europe could have allowed him to take Prussia, Romania and its oil, and Hungary quite quickly? Could the Axis have had any hope? After all, the main success behind Barbarossa was the fact that so many Soviet troops were at the border and this allowed the Germans to encircle huge numbers of them. Could we see the same happening to Germany, with an infuriated Hitler ordering commanders to hold position when retreat was preferable?

Depending on the scale of Axis success in the ME, would the USSR try and invade Turkey and/or Iran?

My scenario precludes the declaration of war on the U.S, btw, because Hitler would have seen it as bolstering British confidence, although obviously the U.S will certainly funnel ludicrous amounts of aid to the Soviets, even if they decide to strike first.

Thoughts?
 
In Sinister's tl, Barbarossa is postponed until 1942.

Does it then hit the Red Army and bounce? Or does he pretend (like far too many of these kind of TLs) that the Soviet reform and rearmament program was not a thing?

EDIT: Just found it... and yes it does! What nonsense.

Namely, that Britain stays in the war after losing the Suez Canal AND simultaneously being attacked by Japan. I believe these two disasters would have pushed Britain over the edge; Parliament would have forced Churchill to negotiate with Hitler.
Hardly. With the US on their side, Parliament would recognize that victory is a matter of time. And the German's taking the Suez Canal? How? The logistics don't exist. I know that Sinister ignored this, but German and Italian generals can't.

With all that said, assuming the Brits agree to peace with Germany in December '41/early '42, is it not likely Stalin would have decided to attack Germany, knowing they were in a weak position and with the bulk of their forces scattered across Africa and the Middle East, an early spring strike across Eastern Europe could have allowed him to take Prussia, Romania and its oil, and Hungary quite quickly? Could the Axis have had any hope? After all, the main success behind Barbarossa was the fact that so many Soviet troops were at the border and this allowed the Germans to encircle huge numbers of them. Could we see the same happening to Germany, with an infuriated Hitler ordering commanders to hold position when retreat was preferable?
Given the remaining deficiencies in the Red Army at that point, said offensive probably bounces (ie: makes it a couple dozen miles and then stalls). Unlike the Germans though, the Soviets can easily afford an offensive bouncing and by 1942 will have more then enough mass and skill behind them to turn any attempted German counter-offensive into a slugfest. This ultimately paves the way for the Soviets to grind their way across Eastern Europe over the course of '43.

My scenario precludes the declaration of war on the U.S, btw, because Hitler would have seen it as bolstering British confidence, although obviously the U.S will certainly funnel ludicrous amounts of aid to the Soviets, even if they decide to strike first.
US DOWs Hitler a few months later anyways.
 
Last edited:
Does it then hit the Red Army and bounce? Or does he pretend (like far too many of these kind of TLs) that the Soviet reform and rearmament program was not a thing?

EDIT: Just found it... and yes it does! What nonsense.

Hardly. With the US on their side, Parliament would recognize that victory is a matter of time. And the German's taking the Suez Canal? How? The logistics don't exist.

He acknowledges it, the German's don't do as well as in TTL.

Alexandria. Egypt is very difficult to defend.

US DOWs Hitler a few months later anyways.

How? Why would Congress approve this when the U.S has its hands full with Japan? Especially when so many Congressmen (and general American sentiment) are anti-communist?
 
He acknowledges it, the German's don't do as well as in TTL.

"Don't do as well"? They somehow push the Soviets over Stalin line, the D'vina-D'niepr line, and get a spearhead to loop around east of Moscow and then somehow manage to hold those positions through the winter. And the Soviets don't manage to recross the D'niepr (somehow) until 1945! For an attack against a Red Army in 1942 which (unlike OTL 1941) has a coherent strategic plan, a fully prepared war industry, most of their units at their full TOE, hundreds of thousands of retrained officers, a strong PVO and air defense organization, and much more (the list just goes on)... this is ludicrously successful.

Alexandria.
The Germans don't have the logistical assets to reach Alexandria! Much less take it intact...

Egypt is very difficult to defend.
So difficult that the British were able to trivially pull-back from defense line to defense line when they were forced to defend it. It was in Libya that the British suffered their worst defeats in the North African campaign, after all.

How? Why would Congress approve this when the U.S has its hands full with Japan?
Because Germany is seen as an ally of Japan and with American vessels sending aide to the British and/or Soviets in the Atlantic invariably getting sunk by German U-Boats (and in turn being sunk by American warships assigned to protect those convoys) the Germans are also killing American citizens.

Especially when so many Congressmen (and general American sentiment) are anti-communist?
Thanks to Pearl Harbour, Anti-Fascist sentiment more then trumps anti-communist sentiment at this point of time.
 
Alexandria. Egypt is very difficult to defend

And the ability to take it is even harder. The main issue was that both sides didn't have the supplies/logistics to stage an offensive. The German and Italian army was VERY low on water. The supply columns had a very long trek towards the front. (from Tripoli all the way to the front)

Why would Congress approve this when the U.S has its hands full with Japan?
If the U.S had it's hand-full with Japan then Japan couldn't have any real pressure against India and Australia.
 
The U.S was more anti-Japanese than anti-fascist; and anti-Communism was certainly more prominent than anti-fascism. Remember the atrocities committed by the Soviets were well-known by this time, much more so than Germany's. And if Germany has made peace with Britain, then the Soviets will be seen as the aggressors intent on conquering Europe and the U.S public will not support aiding them in this regard.

As for Egypt, the whole crux is that Germany focuses more resources here than in OTL. Britain loses Malta and can not reinforce from the Mediterranean. With more Axis attention, and less British defensive capability, taking Egypt is not at all implausible considering what had already happened in the war. But that is not the point of this thread, I'm looking to see what a Soviet first-strike against Germany in '42 would have looked like. Thoughts?
 
My scenario precludes the declaration of war on the U.S, btw, because Hitler would have seen it as bolstering British confidence, although obviously the U.S will certainly funnel ludicrous amounts of aid to the Soviets, even if they decide to strike first.

Thoughts?

Yeah i think on both those accounts you have it wrong.

The US will most definitly declare war on the Germans, they can't handle the Japanese without handling the Germans as well, even if Britain has made peace. Germany and Japan are allies and the Germans want a piece of the US, wherever they are. They will most likely attack ships from then on forcing the US to take actions accordingly. With the US in the war, the British will go back into it again as well, depending on how bad they are beaten...

However, if the Soviets decide to strike into Europe themselves without US or Great Britain condoning it their military aid stops. They would be just as bad as the Germans at that point, taking territory that is not theirs, again. Their advances will be slow, since the Germans don't have a Western front. By the time it goes really hard and unbearable the rest of the Commonwealth and US would have taken back Africa and Great Britain back in the war with the US airforce protecting them from German attacks. Germany will be exhausted by then, no way to take back the control. Like it would have done eventually anyway.
 
Yeah i think on both those accounts you have it wrong.

The US will most definitly declare war on the Germans, they can't handle the Japanese without handling the Germans as well, even if Britain has made peace. Germany and Japan are allies and the Germans want a piece of the US, wherever they are. They will most likely attack ships from then on forcing the US to take actions accordingly. With the US in the war, the British will go back into it again as well, depending on how bad they are beaten...

However, if the Soviets decide to strike into Europe themselves without US or Great Britain condoning it their military aid stops. They would be just as bad as the Germans at that point, taking territory that is not theirs, again. Their advances will be slow, since the Germans don't have a Western front. By the time it goes really hard and unbearable the rest of the Commonwealth and US would have taken back Africa and Great Britain back in the war with the US airforce protecting them from German attacks. Germany will be exhausted by then, no way to take back the control. Like it would have done eventually anyway.

How is taking Germany tied to Japan...? Sure, they're technically allies, but the actual aid they gave to each other was minuscule. Trying to take them both on at the same time is an implausible plan to sell to the public, especially once Britain has made peace. There wouldn't be any more U-boat attacks and I don't know where you get the idea that Germany "wanted a piece of the U.S wherever they are." His mission was to secure Europe and the exterior. With that accomplished, declaring war on an enemy an ocean away, while simultaneously making plans to deal with the Reds to the East is counterproductive.
 
The U.S was more anti-Japanese than anti-fascist; and anti-Communism was certainly more prominent than anti-fascism.

Not in evidence. American aid was extended to the Soviet Union well before Pearl Harbour occurred and opinion polls clearly favored declaring war on Germany after PH.

Remember the atrocities committed by the Soviets were well-known by this time, much more so than Germany's.
They were more well-known by the Germans, but that doesn't mean they were well-known on the whole. Most information that had gotten out was vague and lacking in details enough for Soviet-sympathizers to dismiss them as anti-communist propaganda.

As for Egypt, the whole crux is that Germany focuses more resources here than in OTL.
Does not help. The issue is the infrastructure over which those resources have to operate, not the devotion of them.

Britain loses Malta and can not reinforce from the Mediterranean.
How? Losing Malta I can see, but that does not impact Britain's ability to reinforce the Med theater: that was done by shipping around South Africa and up through the Suez. It does ease the strain on Italian convoys heading to the Libyan Ports, but that has no impact because those ports were operating at full capacity IOTL anyways.

But that is not the point of this thread, I'm looking to see what a Soviet first-strike against Germany in '42 would have looked like. Thoughts?
And I did, I posted:

"Given the remaining deficiencies in the Red Army at that point, said offensive probably bounces (ie: makes it a couple dozen miles and then stalls). Unlike the Germans though, the Soviets can easily afford an offensive bouncing and by 1942 will have more then enough mass and skill behind them to turn any attempted German counter-offensive into a slugfest. This ultimately paves the way for the Soviets to grind their way across Eastern Europe over the course of '43."

However, if the Soviets decide to strike into Europe themselves without US or Great Britain condoning it their military aid stops.
Without having half their economic base destroyed by the German invasion, the Soviets doesn't need any lend-lease to roll into Berlin by mid-'44 at the latest (late-'43 at the earliest). It would be nice, but not necessary.
 
Top