Stalin goes West 1945

WI Stalin decided to destroy his "Capitalist Enemies" in 1945 by attacking British/American/French troops. POD France was bloodier to liberate and the Allies take 50% more casualties then OTL and never get more then 10 miles into Germany before Stalin attacks. Even with the change I don't think it is very likely but on the remote chance it would be, what happens?
 
You'd have to do something to make the Germans

emphasize the Western allies more in their war planning. A cease-fire after Kursk, maybe. This is full of holes but here goes:

After their precious Tigers and Panthers fail to do the job (albeit, barely), Hilter and/or OKW have a bizarre attack of rationality and recognize that

1941=country-wide offensive
1942=theater offensive
1943=can't lop off one measly salient

Alternately, you could have the Germans discover their communications have been compromised by LUCY and decide to play for time. Either way, they offer a cease-fire with some boundary line sweeteners.

Immediately after Kursk, the Soviets are in no shape to do anything offensive and Stalin figures, free territory, why not. It's not like the cease-fire will last one second beyond when he wants it to, anyway.

Fast forward a couple months and the Red Army is ready, as they were in OTL, to blow a huge hole in Army Group Center. STAVKA is pushing loudly for this, so loudly that Stalin begins to think his generals are getting out of hand. With the military situation stabilized, he turns to the political situation, asserting his authority to maintain the cease-fire and do any other manner of silly thing by whatever means necessary. No fall or winter offensive in 1943, a spring 1944 offensive is possible.

As the cease-fire holds, the Germans begin to slowly and very cautiously shift air and even a few ground assets west (while actually making modest defensive preparations in the east). As the ground thaws, the Red Army is ready and Stalin is finally willing but now Soviet spies in the West are reporting an invasion is scheduled for June. As this information becomes more solid, and with the political lessons of 1943 in mind, it is decided to wait.

D-day still achieves tactical surprise but now there are two extra divisions -- one with Panthers -- available plus a whole lot more fighters. The German screw-ups are unchanged and the beachhead is established but the Allies suffer heavier casualties from the heavier dislodge effort when it is eventually launched.

June 8: STAVKA confirms a major amphibious assault. June 9: the Red Army rolls. Versus OTL, the Soviets have farther to go and the Germans have suffered fewer losses. But the Soviets are also much better prepared.

In the West, the Allies are unchanged and the Germans are stronger. The different balance of forces opens up the possibility of actually defeating the US and Britain, an option not available in the East. So the Luftwaffe gives up on the air war over Russia in order to try to provide cover for the panzers. Even with air dominance from the outset, the few top-of-the-line tanks the Allies faced in OTL gave them fits. Now there are more tanks and less ability to get at them through the air.

Payoff

The German attempt to drive the Allies into the sea fails but the liberation of France is slower and more costly. Meanwhile, the Soviets are able to make up for lost time with the Germans focusing their attention on the West. Instead of logistical exhaustion in front of Berlin in April 1945, the Soviets arrive in June in pretty good shape. The Allies are barely slugging into Germany. The battle of Berlin is horribly costly, then the Allies insist on a partion where they get part of Berlin and a larger chunk of Germany. Stalin says nothing, merely occupies most of the country. The Allies declare their nuclear capability. Stalin decides he needs more bargaining chips, like more German territory.
 

Raymann

Banned
Well, in so far as how long the war lasts, it depends how prepared we are. The US was demoblizing before the war even ended so we'd have to get back on the war footing right away. The fact is, despite everything else, we'll get pushed back at least to the Rhine depending on how paranoid Patton is provided he's still there. They're going to be some massive tank battles but even if the Soviets win a few, they are nowhere near as mobile as the allies and by the end of the year the Red Army and several Soviet cities are going to be so much ratioactive ash.
 
Raymann said:
Well, in so far as how long the war lasts, it depends how prepared we are. The US was demoblizing before the war even ended so we'd have to get back on the war footing right away. The fact is, despite everything else, we'll get pushed back at least to the Rhine depending on how paranoid Patton is provided he's still there. They're going to be some massive tank battles but even if the Soviets win a few, they are nowhere near as mobile as the allies and by the end of the year the Red Army and several Soviet cities are going to be so much ratioactive ash.
I think nukes or no nukes the Soviets are doomed in the long run due to two reasons 1)morale 2)logistics. After winning a long, tough war against Germany I am not so sure that most Soviet soldiers would be thrilled with the idea of suddenly fighting the Americans. The logistical problem for the Soviets was that their economy was "running on fumes" by the end of the war. The Red Airforce is going to go down fairly quickly to the RAF and USAAF. The Russians will have problems maintaining their huge army since there will obviously be no lend-lease aid. Also most of the various people of the area hate the Russians historically. The Poles and the Germans might well run a nasty guerilla war against them. The US hadn't even "maxed out" in military potential in 1945 so the Russians better win damn quickly or they will be snowed under a mountain Allied tanks, planes and artillary.
 
What makes you think the Red Airforce will go down fast . there ars some good aircraft in the Soviet Airforce and a lot of good piolts by this time .
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Two other things I've not seen anybody mention is the rearmed Germans now fighting on the Allied side and the large Japanese forces still in China.

What we might see would be the first large deployment of tactical nuclear warfare. This changes everything since the Red Army is gone very quickly and the breakup of the Soviet Union comes 44 years early. No Cold War and American/Allied world hegemony enforced by Atomic Cannon.
 
Ward said:
What makes you think the Red Airforce will go down fast . there ars some good aircraft in the Soviet Airforce and a lot of good piolts by this time .
The west had a lot of good planes and pilots. The US alone had more planes then the rest of world combined IIRC. Air power wise the Russians would be out of their league.
 
Brilliantlight said:
The west had a lot of good planes and pilots. The US alone had more planes then the rest of world combined IIRC. Air power wise the Russians would be out of their league.
I agree entirely, I think that Russia really did have the power on the ground, bu the western allies controlled the sky.

I believe that Russia would evolve a strategy to advance when weather was bad, then dig in during good weather. (Wasn't this basically the German strategy against the western allies?)

Anytime they tried to advance on good days, their armor would be creamed by Allied air.

Remember, in the east Russia never really had to contend with any significant air power, which was largely pulled back to defend the heartland.

This advance and dig in strategy would be dogged and slow, allowing the allies a chance to build assets that could match the Russian Armies.
 
Norman said:
I agree entirely, I think that Russia really did have the power on the ground, bu the western allies controlled the sky.

I believe that Russia would evolve a strategy to advance when weather was bad, then dig in during good weather. (Wasn't this basically the German strategy against the western allies?)

Anytime they tried to advance on good days, their armor would be creamed by Allied air.

Remember, in the east Russia never really had to contend with any significant air power, which was largely pulled back to defend the heartland.

This advance and dig in strategy would be dogged and slow, allowing the allies a chance to build assets that could match the Russian Armies.
Agreed, if the Russian offensive gets stalled early it will be a race to see who can build the most weapons the fastest and that is a race the Russians had NO chance at winning!
 
This is the reason I tried to set up an actual

POD. In my POD and I think in most reasonable ones, the US and Britain are still at war with Japan. They have to judge how much air power to shift to Europe and where to use the limited supply of atomic weapons.

The political side is also not so easy. If the Soviets limit themselves to Germany, Austria, and Italy and leave Denmark and the Low Countries alone, how much is it worth to the Western Allies to fight to free the Axis?

Again, in the particular POD I outlined (and in Brilliant's starting post), the Soviets can grab most of Germany without encountering Allied troops. No casualties to avenge. Then they can sit and drag their feet at the negotiating table. They'll give up northern Italy and Austria but keep Germany, etc. Now what?
 
DMS said:
POD. In my POD and I think in most reasonable ones, the US and Britain are still at war with Japan. They have to judge how much air power to shift to Europe and where to use the limited supply of atomic weapons.

The political side is also not so easy. If the Soviets limit themselves to Germany, Austria, and Italy and leave Denmark and the Low Countries alone, how much is it worth to the Western Allies to fight to free the Axis?

Again, in the particular POD I outlined (and in Brilliant's starting post), the Soviets can grab most of Germany without encountering Allied troops. No casualties to avenge. Then they can sit and drag their feet at the negotiating table. They'll give up northern Italy and Austria but keep Germany, etc. Now what?
Yep, however if he wants to avoid war with US/UK he will eventually have to give up some of Germany. Both the US and the UK know that letting Russia have all of Germany would severely disturb the balance of power to Russia's favor.
 
Brilliantlight said:
Yep, however if he wants to avoid war with US/UK he will eventually have to give up some of Germany. Both the US and the UK know that letting Russia have all of Germany would severely disturb the balance of power to Russia's favor.
I'm curious as to how the Germans would react to this.
 
JimmyJimJam said:
I'm curious as to how the Germans would react to this.
Panic, the last things most Germans wanted is to be ruled by the Russians. Probably form a resistance movement of some kind.
 
Raymann said:
Well, in so far as how long the war lasts, it depends how prepared we are. The US was demoblizing before the war even ended so we'd have to get back on the war footing right away. The fact is, despite everything else, we'll get pushed back at least to the Rhine depending on how paranoid Patton is provided he's still there. They're going to be some massive tank battles but even if the Soviets win a few, they are nowhere near as mobile as the allies and by the end of the year the Red Army and several Soviet cities are going to be so much ratioactive ash.
Nowhere near as mobile? With the Germans gone they are the tank masters of the world and the allies with their statical andvance-on-all-front-and-only-when-we-totally-ounumber-the-enemy-tactics the immobile guys. Not to mention that the Soviets have a huge army, much bigger then the US/UK, lots of tanks, god tanks, hardende soldiers. American soldiers never suffered a tenth as much as the Soviets and the coward Rosevelt didn't invade untill 1944 resulting in the fact that American soldiers has never met a formidable enemy, only the second class units (10% of the German forces) that Hitler sent West. Now the Allies will also have to fight in the air. All in all I'd say that the inital Soviet suprise attack will smash the Allied lines and with their pure weight, resulting in a sort of 1940-style collapse with US/UK soldiers in full retreat and unable to reorganize.

America will drop a few nukes, but this is the Soviet Union. They are hardcore when it comes to stuff like this, 18 million civillians dead on the eastern front, you remember. And they have an airforce, so its likely that they will intercept, shoot down and re-deliver at least some of the Nukes send against them. And you know want, the British isn't hardcore. When London has been annihilated and the Soviets using the captured nukes as a blueprint starts to produce their owns in maybe 47 then they'll be in big trouble.
 
NapoleonXIV said:
Two other things I've not seen anybody mention is the rearmed Germans now fighting on the Allied side and the large Japanese forces still in China.

What we might see would be the first large deployment of tactical nuclear warfare. This changes everything since the Red Army is gone very quickly and the breakup of the Soviet Union comes 44 years early. No Cold War and American/Allied world hegemony enforced by Atomic Cannon.
reamred germans? Which Germans? 33% of all males was already dead! Are you calling the volksturm back to service? And how will the allies get these Germans since they'll surly be under Soviet occupation.
 
Finally we must consider the politicial front. The Soviets were many times stronger, bigger and better then the Germans. Instead of a front with half a milllion Germans they'll face 6 million Russians. This will const casualties, and America isn't ready to lose men in millions. Remember the Great war.
 
Peter said:
Nowhere near as mobile? With the Germans gone they are the tank masters of the world and the allies with their statical andvance-on-all-front-and-only-when-we-totally-ounumber-the-enemy-tactics the immobile guys. American soldiers never suffered a tenth as much as the Soviets and the coward Rosevelt didn't invade untill 1944 resulting in the fact that American soldiers has never met a formidable enemy, only the second class units (10% of the German forces) that Hitler sent West.
QUOTE]

The US/UK forces were more mobile than either the Germans or the Russians (both of which relied on horse-powered transport a lot). I read somewhere that a US infantry division had more trucks than a German armored division.. basically, nobody walked.
As for Roosevelt... didn't he want to invade France in '43 and get talked out of it by Churchill? Or was it the other way around? Either way, it's probably a good thing, as the US army simply lacked the experience to tackle anything as tough as the German defenses in France in '43.....
 
Dave Howery said:
Peter said:
Nowhere near as mobile? With the Germans gone they are the tank masters of the world and the allies with their statical andvance-on-all-front-and-only-when-we-totally-ounumber-the-enemy-tactics the immobile guys. American soldiers never suffered a tenth as much as the Soviets and the coward Rosevelt didn't invade untill 1944 resulting in the fact that American soldiers has never met a formidable enemy, only the second class units (10% of the German forces) that Hitler sent West.
QUOTE]

The US/UK forces were more mobile than either the Germans or the Russians (both of which relied on horse-powered transport a lot). I read somewhere that a US infantry division had more trucks than a German armored division.. basically, nobody walked.
As for Roosevelt... didn't he want to invade France in '43 and get talked out of it by Churchill? Or was it the other way around? Either way, it's probably a good thing, as the US army simply lacked the experience to tackle anything as tough as the German defenses in France in '43.....
Nor did the Russians attack until they outnumbered the Germans either. Besides Russia fought Germany only because they were attacked by the Germans not becuase they cared about anyone else. Hell they were practically allied with Germany for almost two years!
 
Peter said:
American soldiers has never met a formidable enemy, only the second class units (10% of the German forces) that Hitler sent West.

And you know want, the British isn't hardcore. When London has been annihilated and the Soviets using the captured nukes as a blueprint starts to produce their owns in maybe 47 then they'll be in big trouble.
This is a good example of a random quasi-historical rant. The Western Allies faced SS Panzer divisions during and after D-day, were these (albeit often understrength) divisions really "second class" or "10%" of German offensive capability?

As for the determination of the British, their perseverance through Dunkirk, the Blitz (American involvement was a fantasy at that point), the Desert War, etc. etc. was pretty impressive.
 
The Western German units didn't include

their best tanks.

The obvious answer is probably best here. In an all-out war, the Soviets have the initial advantage but that will change fairly quickly if the Allies shift air units from the West and go into mass production of the Pershing. The Soviets are far more fatigued from the fighting than the US. So the prior political question is how far does Stalin think he can push before he risks a sustained conflict?
 
Top