Soviets Exiled To Siberia After Succesful Barbarossa, What Next?

[AltoRegnant]

So recently i've been knocking around with an American-Nazi Cold War scenario, which means Germany wins Barbarossa. below are the map and lore relevant to the situation in Russia

A disaster at Dunkirk forced the UK off the continent, though neutral Spain meant they could still operate in the Mediterranean and force Italy out of Libya with the French resistance. Despite this, however, they were not able to stop the fall of Greece. While Churchill was forced to resign in shame, Lord Halifax ultimately was not willing to accept the terms of surrender that Hitler offered, meaning war would continue on for quite some time.
[...]
Leningrad fell in early 1942, enabling German enforcements elsewhere in the front. Resulting in the Fall of Moscow. this ultimately broke the Soviet Government, and effectively ended European hostilities as Britain no longer had any hope of getting on the continent. Shortly after the battle of Moscow ended in a German victory, the central Asian states broke away in the chaos of the collapsing federation. Gregory Zhukov survived the Soviet Collapse and fled to Krasnoyarsk, one of the larger cities in Siberia, where he declared the Siberian Emergency Government, which hoped to reclaim western Russia from the Nazis. Siberia would also annex the Tuvan State, a large sore spot between it and China.
[...]
In the peace, Adolf Hitler set about "civilizing" his lebensraum, carving out domains for the SS and Wehrmacht and setting up a tiering system, wherein as the colonies grew more German they would be brought into the Kerngebiet. By 1948, the Polish Corridor, Lithuania, and parts of Belarus were considered acceptable.

So, Siberia is obviously not as well developed or connected as the rest of Russia, as seen from this map grabbed off Wikipedia

it's also substantially less populated, though honestly with refugee crises and even deportations i could see this being shored up. finally, it's obviously absolutely frigid in that part of the world, being comparable in latitude to canada but without the massively important currents bringing warm water to the region.

in effect, this Siberian Emergency Government would be its own country, separated from Russia and the remnants of the Russian nation until the collapse of the Reich. How would this nation evolve? what are some likely economic centers, or underlying issues it needs to address? I suspect it would be US-aligned due to American influence in east Asia and America being the only power that could rival germany at this point, but I also imagine Zhucov would be very eager to industrialize the country and avoid being an American Puppet.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Although you could have Germany do better with Barbarossa, perhaps even well-enough to bring down the Soviet government, you cannot get them to establish a German Empire that goes all the way to the Urals.

Even if the Red Army evaporates into the ether, the Western Allies will defeat the Nazis before they can Manifest Destiny that far. If Germany hasn't surrendered by the time Manhattan wraps up, Germany would be nuked, so even if you butterfly away Overlord, it still doesn't lead to a Nazi victory. The Austrian maniac would refuse to surrender, but sooner or later a bomb would get him.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Although you could have Germany do better with Barbarossa, perhaps even well-enough to bring down the Soviet government, you cannot get them to establish a German Empire that goes all the way to the Urals.

Even if the Red Army evaporates into the ether, the Western Allies will defeat the Nazis before they can Manifest Destiny that far. If Germany hasn't surrendered by the time Manhattan wraps up, Germany would be nuked, so even if you butterfly away Overlord, it still doesn't lead to a Nazi victory. The Austrian maniac would refuse to surrender, but sooner or later a bomb would get him.

i kept the lore drop centered on the Soviets, but the way i set up the scenario was America not going into Europe, and with the collapse of the Soviets, Britain was forced to make peace- especially when Hitler offered better terms to focus on Europe and russia instead of dealing with Africa (the original terms hitler offered at the fall of France involved the return of colonies.)

 

[Clandango]

I would say Central Asia gets flooded with Russians and other groups, who already made up a majority in many parts of northern Kazakhstan. Depends which ones are actually allowed to leave, as I can see the Germans keeping many groups around for the slave labor, as part of their ideas for Ostplan was to work people to death to make the area suitable livable and agrarian for Germans. Also, should it be assumed Denmark and the Western European areas were annexed only after all the Soviet soldiers and such were sent to Siberia? Well, Soviet civilians. I expect the POWs are eliminated by the Germans. Belarus probably doesn’t get annexed this early on, even if it was bundled with the Baltics. The land isn’t good enough and the Nazis wanted to spread people out in the best areas and then work outward. That is Pindus in Greece, not a Jewish state, correct? It would have been fun to see it, but if it were they would have Thessaloniki as well. And, you know, not be in a Naziwank world. Ahhh, and while Turkmenistan may call itself a Capital N Neutral country today, no reason it should be the country in Turkestan. What is China’s relations with the Nazis and Russians?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

i kept the lore drop centered on the Soviets, but the way i set up the scenario was America not going into Europe, and with the collapse of the Soviets, Britain was forced to make peace- especially when Hitler offered better terms to focus on Europe and russia instead of dealing with Africa (the original terms hitler offered at the fall of France.)

And how are you going to keep the USA neutral in Europe? If Hitler refuses to declare war on America, that would delay American entry into the European theater, but it wouldn't avert it. The U-boat campaign would eventually bring America to declare war on Germany, and Britain would continue to receive American supplies, both for the fight against Japan and because the American public overwhelmingly favored the allied cause against the Nazis. If you have FDR lose in 1940, his Republican opponent, Wendell Wilkie, is more likely to pursue a Pacific first strategy, but he still considered Hitler to be a mortal enemy. The only ways I can think of to keep America neutral in the European theater are to either avert the fall of France or to have Germany not led by the Nazis.

Also how are you forcing Britain to make peace? If it's with a stronger wolfpack campaign, that would be a good way to get America to enter the war before Pearl Harbor, even if we handwaved questions about how the Kriegsmarine got that strong.

 

[Deleted member 180541]

The mighty proletariat return from their Siberian slumber, cast out and destroy the German yolk, and rebuild the worker's paradise from the ground up.

 

[Gabingston]

Would the USSR even survive after they lost the European heartland? I think it's very plausible that Russia collapses into some sort of warlord period, with the Nazis and (if they survive) Imperial Japanese trying to keep it going as long as possible.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I would say Central Asia gets flooded with Russians and other groups, who already made up a majority in many parts of northern Kazakhstan.

Huh, didn't expect that. Admittedly with central Asia I kinda just followed the internal borders

Depends which ones are actually allowed to leave, as I can see the Germans keeping many groups around for the slave labor, as part of their ideas for Ostplan was to work people to death to make the area suitable livable and agrarian for Germans.

True. I suspect it would mostly be those around leningrad's metro and the balts, since the plan I found indicated leningrad would be razed and given to Finland for farming. The baltics weren't super populated anyway, not a lot of slaves. At least deportation-wise.

I don't see Germany being able to handle the logistics of enslaving russia, so a lot do flee into anywhere from the central asian states, Iran, or over the mountains.

Also, should it be assumed Denmark and the Western European areas were annexed only after all the Soviet soldiers and such were sent to Siberia?

Not sure how much of a difference it makes since I think hitler wanted to annex those countries anyway, but formally they were incorporated during peace treaties.

Well, Soviet civilians. I expect the POWs are eliminated by the Germans. Belarus probably doesn’t get annexed this early on, even if it was bundled with the Baltics.

Huh. Noted.

The land isn’t good enough and the Nazis wanted to spread people out in the best areas and then work outward. That is Pindus in Greece, not a Jewish state, correct?

I figured italy would have to accept not annexing the whole country, so nominally a republic of greece, but it's a weak italian puppet.

It would have been fun to see it, but if it were they would have Thessaloniki as well.

I thought that was Bulgaria's chief war aim and gave it to them accordingly

And, you know, not be in a Naziwank world. Ahhh, and while Turkmenistan may call itself a Capital N Neutral country today, no reason it should be the country in Turkestan.

Are you saying turkestan would be absorbed by its neighbors?

What is China’s relations with the Nazis and Russians?

China is probably the non-aligned block's heavy hitter ttl- surrounded by american allies but not subordinate to the states. Tuva and outer Manchuria would be sore spots but logistically I don't see them being pro germany

 

[AltoRegnant]

Would the USSR even survive after they lost the European heartland? I think it's very plausible that Russia collapses into some sort of warlord period, with the Nazis and (if they survive) Imperial Japanese trying to keep it going as long as possible.

Honestly I could see both, and chose to have the siberian exiles around because it's different than most of the nazi cold wars i see. I suspect it's similar to china for a while- the central government is seen as important but struggles to control its periphery. I also suspect siberia would fix it a little sooner since america benefits from them being stable more than it does China, and I think siberia has better railway connections than china at this point. The problems would be up north- and then you're in northern Siberia

 

[AltoRegnant]

And how are you going to keep the USA neutral in Europe? If Hitler refuses to declare war on America, that would delay American entry into the European theater, but it wouldn't avert it. The U-boat campaign would eventually bring America to declare war on Germany, and Britain would continue to receive American supplies, both for the fight against Japan and because the American public overwhelmingly favored the allied cause against the Nazis. If you have FDR lose in 1940, his Republican opponent, Wendell Wilkie, is more likely to pursue a Pacific first strategy, but he still considered Hitler to be a mortal enemy. The only ways I can think of to keep America neutral in the European theater are to either avert the fall of France or to have Germany not led by the Nazis.

Also how are you forcing Britain to make peace? If it's with a stronger wolfpack campaign, that would be a good way to get America to enter the war before Pearl Harbor, even if we handwaved questions about how the Kriegsmarine got that strong.

Dunkirk is a failure, meaning the BEF is killed or taken prisoner, and Halifax reluctantly takes power. He refutes Hitler's initial terms but struggles to make gains. While Britain holds Africa, anything in Europe is a failure. With the gall of the soviets, hitler offers better terms which Halifax sees no way out of.

As for america, admittedly I'm a bit handwavey on it

 

[Clandango]

@AltoRegnant Turkestan would be for most of Central Asia, versus Turkmenistan which is just the one country. As one of the countries in this Central Asia is a Persian/Iranian/Tajik state, it would fit in less well. Though maybe not, since it would be geographically closer to the Kyrgyz and Uzbeks. It really depends on if you are having the Central Asian states in a in single the colors for the borders were accidental and they were all meant to be independent. Also might be interesting if Turkmenistan was uses as some sort of distant Turkish satteliate that the Germans let be propped up for reasons of oil or something, but I don’t see that happening in this Victory Fever setting. Well, maybe the Germans would use the Turks to try destabilizing the Soviets and fight against Slavs, but if the Soviets have brought in twenty million refugees, they are liable to have pushed accommodating groups into the deserts, Siberia, or to be used as slave labors exported to Germany, if we go with the ridiculous war aim that shows up in some books of them getting one hundred thousand de facto slaves a year.

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

Everybody talks about the flood of refugees but not about a possible exodus through the Caucasus into Turkey and Iran. And the establishment of the AA line is the end of the red army european Russia is vast and wild it would be partisan hell for the Germans

 

[Clandango]

Everybody talks about the flood of refugees but not about a possible exodus through the Caucasus into Turkey and Iran.

Which involves getting through hundreds of miles Russian territory, the Caucasus Mountains, plus the Turkish, Iranian, and German armies. The Turks and Iranians are unlikely be to amiable to millions of Russians pouring into their countries, though Muslims will have a easier time.

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

Which involves getting through hundreds of miles Russian territory, the Caucasus Mountains, plus the Turkish, Iranian, and German armies. The Turks and Iranians are unlikely be to amiable to millions of Russians pouring into their countries, though Muslims will have a easier time.

The distance problem depends on where the refugees start out from and the problem is applicable to those heading to Siberia. While the Turks might very well be unwilling I could see the Brits pressuring the Iranains into accepting some or at the very least hosting them to the British could settle them elsewhere.

 

[Clandango]

The distance problem depends on where the refugees start out from and the problem is applicable to those heading to Siberia. While the Turks might very well be unwilling I could see the Brits pressuring the Iranains into accepting some or at the very least hosting them to the British could settle them elsewhere.

I suppose part of the issue will also be what parts of the Soviet Union the Germans got to first. I think we can expect massacres here and there, and for there to be difficulty of movement through some areas, though if we do go by the map at the top and all the small details (interesting to see a state between Ukraine and the General-Government) that genocide might not be going as fast as usual, unless you count how the Baltics and nearby areas are considered ‘German enough’ within five years. Hmmm. Anyways, if the Soviets and British still occupy Iran here, then maybe they have a chance of evacuating, but the British would have difficulty keeping pressuring on Iran for future evacuation, especially if the Germans start selling or giving loads of weapons to the Iranians to drive out the British and Russians. Also, where would the British put more people? Dump them in India, perhaps? If the British and others had no place to put Jews, then a far larger amount of Communists won’t be see as much better for the stability of their lands. A lot of that post may be a bit confusing, I am a bit tired but feel I will make more confusion if I edit it further.

Long story short, this map has the Germans get far too much too easilly and too fast. We need details on how brutal they were and in what locations before we know if the local populace is in mortal danger and needs to flee. We know how the Nazis are, but we weren’t given much details on them actually doing that sort of stuff here.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Long story short, this map has the Germans get far too much too easilly and too fast. We need details on how brutal they were and in what locations before we know if the local populace is in mortal danger and needs to flee. We know how the Nazis are, but we weren’t given much details on them actually doing that sort of stuff here.

Honestly I think any nazi cold war runs into that problem, but I digress. In the areas around the baltic sea (poland, baltics, and Belarus) I was thinking some level of hunger plan. Ukraine and russia being too big for that see a lot more slave labor, especially under the boot of native ss collaborators

 

[RedSword12]

Although you could have Germany do better with Barbarossa, perhaps even well-enough to bring down the Soviet government, you cannot get them to establish a German Empire that goes all the way to the Urals.

Even if the Red Army evaporates into the ether, the Western Allies will defeat the Nazis before they can Manifest Destiny that far. If Germany hasn't surrendered by the time Manhattan wraps up, Germany would be nuked, so even if you butterfly away Overlord, it still doesn't lead to a Nazi victory. The Austrian maniac would refuse to surrender, but sooner or later a bomb would get him.

That's overly deterministic. It is entirely reasonable for the Western Allies to eventually negotiate a truce with the Third Reich, when it becomes clear victory is beyond their means and will become too costly. If the heads of state of the Western Allies were so certain that nukes alone would win the war, they could've dropped the idea of invading Europe altogether and just sat back until the Manhattan Project started paying off. In 1942, it was no sure thing.

 

[Gillan1220]

The Red Army would fight a war-of-attrition. Germany finds itself in a proto-Vietnam War scenario. Since the economy of the Reich isn't suitable in the long term, it would still collapse from within due to power struggles or post-war economic troubles.

 

[Garrison]

i kept the lore drop centered on the Soviets, but the way i set up the scenario was America not going into Europe, and with the collapse of the Soviets, Britain was forced to make peace- especially when Hitler offered better terms to focus on Europe and russia instead of dealing with Africa (the original terms hitler offered at the fall of France involved the return of colonies.)

And you are engaging in exactly the sort of misunderstanding of British strategic needs that Hitler did. Britain had spent centuries working to keep Low Countries out of the hands of hostile powers. Having Nazi aircraft and U-Boats parked across the channel is unacceptable and of course Hitler has shown that no treaty he signs is worth the paper it is written on.

Dunkirk is a failure, meaning the BEF is killed or taken prisoner, and Halifax reluctantly takes power. He refutes Hitler's initial terms but struggles to make gains. While Britain holds Africa, anything in Europe is a failure. With the gall of the soviets, hitler offers better terms which Halifax sees no way out of.

As for america, admittedly I'm a bit handwavey on it

And more cliches that don't reflect the reality of 1940. No one in Britain expected Dunkirk to succeed and the intention was still to fight on. Halifax can only be PM if he can command the support of Parliament, and Parliament wanted a PM who would do a better job of fighting the war than Chamberlain and that is never going to be Halifax.

As to what happens if Barabarossa somehow succeeded? Well mass murder on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust. Most of it caused by starvation and being worked to death but murder nonetheless. Hitler tries to make Generalplan Ost a reality and its a dismal failure. And that's it, no shiny new Germany, no thousand year Reich, Just something that looks like OTL North Korea at best and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia at worst.

 

[James123456]

Siberia had a population of around 30 Million (including the Urals which had around 14 Million people) in 1939. In 1940, around 6.15 Million people lived in Kazakhstan, 1.5 Million in Kyrgyzstan, 1.5 Million in Tajikistan, 6.55 Million in Uzbekistan, and 1.3 Million in Turkmenistan. Furthermore, around 16.5 Million people were evacuated East in 1941 and 1942. This means that the Soviet Union could potentially have around 63.5 Million people not including the Millions or possibly even Tens of Millions of people who would likely flee into Siberia and Central Asia. With the Soviets possibly having around 60 Million people, the Germans would be forced to keep a large portion of their forces in the East as the Soviets would most likely still be a threat. I don’t see Germany lasting very long after the War as they would be constantly fighting partisans located in the German Occupied Europe, they would have to keep Millions of soldiers in the East to defend against a possible Soviet Counter Offensive, and also because Germany’s economy was almost entirely reliant on Looting and Slave Labour (with the Germans having around 15 Million slaves who made up around 20% of the Workforce) which is not sustainable in the long run.