The shot that changed Europe

This is really top grade. Keep it up!

Having thought about it, I do wish you hadn't committed the U.S. to the Anglo-German side. As it is, it reads a bit "Let's all gang up on Russia." I won't ask you to retool it all, :eek: now, but can you lean the U.S. more to isolationism without screwing yourself? I see one of the 2 great naval powers, Britain (the U.S. being the other), engaged in a largely continental war, & that seems a real shame. Some kind of naval war seems desirable. The prospect of major land battles in/around Sinkiang/Kazakhstan is attractive, but seems unlikely, given the surrounding mountains (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India...).

How's this grab you? Expat Jews, resentful of being expelled, & Afrikaners, resentful of Britain, join the Russian side, developing IRBMs, "V-1s", & snorkel-equipped submarines?:cool::cool: (The snorkel was a Dutch invention, around 1910 OTL, & the pulsejet originated around 1907-10 OTL, IIRC.)

Moreover, given the need for electric power, which SAfr & SU may not have (& which Germany & Britain can't spare...), it may not be feasible to actually produce nukes, even tho technically possible.... Neither do I think Canada or Oz could do it, not if it took as much juice as one of the above posts (sorry, I don't recall whose:() suggests. It might, tho, be possible to create "nuclear" submarines, driven by a variety of radioisotope thermal generator/battery, & "dirty" (radioactive waste) bombs.

Also, the demand for electric power would, IMO, drive Russia or the Anglo-Germans (are you calling them Allies? Axis? something else?) to develop PGMs, which could take out powerstations, & in Germany (at least) the grid wasn't flexible enough to adapt. In the same vein, attacks on Kuibishev could paralyse SU electric power production; a large proportion of Soviet electricity was generated there in the '40s.
 
Like what I've seen so far.

Although one point I'd raise is the immigration to Africa. So far as I recall large scale migration to the Empire post WW1 was proposed but it didn't really occur due to resistance from the Dominions especially - they really couldn't stomach or process even rather small numbers of immigrants let alone very large scale immigration - from an economic or political perspective. Further, Britain didn't have the power to impose this back then, so why would they now without a huge ASB?

You would need some pretty large inducements in order to make them stomach this.
 

General Zod

Banned
Like what I've seen so far.

Although one point I'd raise is the immigration to Africa. So far as I recall large scale migration to the Empire post WW1 was proposed but it didn't really occur due to resistance from the Dominions especially - they really couldn't stomach or process even rather small numbers of immigrants let alone very large scale immigration - from an economic or political perspective. Further, Britain didn't have the power to impose this back then, so why would they now without a huge ASB?

You would need some pretty large inducements in order to make them stomach this.

The inducements I envisaged is twofold: first, Germany does confiscate Jwesih property and uses part of the wealth to finance Jewish immigration to British Africa. Second, most of the Jewish immigration is not initially directed to South Africa proper, rather to the neighboring territories of South West Africa, Beciuanaland, and Southern Rhodesia, the latter two of which Britain does control directly. British government, confident that Jewish immigration substantially boosts the white population in those colonies, agrees to hand them over (and Germany gives up its old claims on South West Africa) to the South Africa Dominion, which therefore agrees to the plan in exchange for massive territorial expansion in resource-rich lands. A minority of the Jewsih immigration is directed to Kenya and Uganda, anyway.
 

General Zod

Banned
This is really top grade. Keep it up!

Having thought about it, I do wish you hadn't committed the U.S. to the Anglo-German side. As it is, it reads a bit "Let's all gang up on Russia." I won't ask you to retool it all, :eek: now, but can you lean the U.S. more to isolationism without screwing yourself?

First, I found it necessary to committ US to interventionism precisely in order to wrench America from hardcore isolationism at this pivotal turn in history, since America as committed player in global politics is rather more useful and interesting. They may be needed later (e.g. to contain Japan in Asia). Second, the British do need at least US financial and L-L support, if not land troops commuttment, if order to find such a long, large-scale war effectively. Third: TTL is among other things an exploration of a WWII reversed alliance system, with USSR as the pariah rogue instead of Nazi Germany. In this sense, TTL is not really "Let's all gang up on Russia" anymore than OTL was "Let's all gang up on Germany".

However, although America is going to be committed to support the Allied side at least as much as L-L and naval support go, I have not yet decided whether the war shall see a committment of American land troops in Europe comparable to OTL. I have arguments (and butterflies) to go either way. The Alliance needs American money, but troops not so much (although would be nice).

I see one of the 2 great naval powers, Britain (the U.S. being the other), engaged in a largely continental war, & that seems a real shame.

Hmm, yep a pity, but can't really be helped, if 1940s USSR is even more landbound than 1940s Germany. The massive Soviet fleet of the 1970s-1980s shall simply be stillborn. OTOH, Britain did plan for a war against Russia for most of the 19th Century and did fight one (albeit it shall look like a kindergarten shuffle in comparison to WWII), so it isn't so outlandish.

Some kind of naval war seems desirable.

That would one silver lining of maneuvering the Japanese to the Soviet side. The other that TTL WWII feels less one-sided.

The prospect of major land battles in/around Sinkiang/Kazakhstan is attractive, but seems unlikely, given the surrounding mountains (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India...).

Yep. However, there is also the Caucasus, and Vladivostok.

How's this grab you? Expat Jews, resentful of being expelled, & Afrikaners, resentful of Britain, join the Russian side, developing IRBMs, "V-1s", & snorkel-equipped submarines?:cool::cool: (The snorkel was a Dutch invention, around 1910 OTL, & the pulsejet originated around 1907-10 OTL, IIRC.)

Argh. Nice try, but IMO Greater South Africa as a rogue global power feels believable a generation or two later, when it has been opportunity to build up its population, economy, and military, and tap the natural resources of Southern Africa. It feels a nice idea for the 1960s, but in the 1940s is ASB. Jews may be resentful for the expulsion (ironically they shall never know how good they got it ITTL) but first-generation immigrants typically do not look up to stirring up trouble. And Britain and Germany are allies here, so Afrikaners do not have that much of overseas leverage.

Anglo-Germans would be called Allies ITTL, in accordance with the reversed alliance systerm theme.
 
TTL is not really "Let's all gang up on Russia" anymore than OTL was "Let's all gang up on Germany".
No, it just has a bit of that feel to me. Not strongly, just a bit. I do like adding Japan as a Sov ally, but I think it's a very long chance.

Yep. However, there is also the Caucasus, and Vladivostok.
I can live with that.:)
Argh. Nice try, but IMO Greater South Africa as a rogue global power feels believable a generation or two later, when it has been opportunity to build up its population, economy, and military, and tap the natural resources of Southern Africa. It feels a nice idea for the 1960s, but in the 1940s is ASB. Jews may be resentful for the expulsion (ironically they shall never know how good they got it ITTL) but first-generation immigrants typically do not look up to stirring up trouble. And Britain and Germany are allies here, so Afrikaners do not have that much of overseas leverage.

ASB? Maybe not. In OTL WW2 (or was it WW1?), it was (IIRC) by only one vote SAf decided to support Britain rather than Germany... There's an old distrust between Afrikaners & Brits, over Boer War, too. Also, IIRC, there were Zionist radicals strongly opposed to Britain. (Maybe only OTL as occupiers in Palestine?) And it wouldn't take a lot of loudmouths to perhaps persuade a wavering SAf gov't...
 

General Zod

Banned
No, it just has a bit of that feel to me. Not strongly, just a bit. I do like adding Japan as a Sov ally, but I think it's a very long chance.

I know (this is why I have not decided whether and how to implement it) but I have been struggling to give Stalin a decent ally without falling into ASB-ness, possibly one that more firmly committs the Americans to the war and gives them something worthwhile to do, instead of just ganging up to the Soviets. Chiang might be a possibility, but he is too pathetic. I have also toyed up with the possibility of a coup in France by an unholy alliance of leftists and anti-German nationalists which places them on the Soviet side, but IMO it skirts ASB (albeit I'm most likely going to implement some similar on a reduced scale, some kind of bad "second Commune" unrest which better explains the dealy of French committment to the war, besides distrust of the Germans) and it's not a real ally, just a diversion. The Anglo-German-Italian Alliance would just act swiftly and invade pro-Soviet France in few months before the new regime can stabilize.

I can live with that.:)

Also be mindful of Persia. When the Soviets invade it, it indeed has some difficult terrain to surmount in Persia proper, not so bad as Afghanistan however, then it's all plain up to the urals. Terrible logistics, but the huge plains of Central Asia, a lot of room for British (and German) tanks.

ASB? Maybe not. In OTL WW2 (or was it WW1?), it was (IIRC) by only one vote SAf decided to support Britain rather than Germany... There's an old distrust between Afrikaners & Brits, over Boer War, too. Also, IIRC, there were Zionist radicals strongly opposed to Britain. (Maybe only OTL as occupiers in Palestine?) And it wouldn't take a lot of loudmouths to perhaps persuade a wavering SAf gov't...

Yep, but be mindful that OTL the Afrikaner hesitation was about to fight Germany, not Soviet Russia. There were ethnic and political affinities between fascist Germany and the right-wing, racist Germanic Afrikaners that would be utterly non-existent with Soviet Russia, quite the contrary. The distrust you mention did exist but was not such a deal as to contemplate betraying the Commonwealth for Communism, since the Dominion status made the SAf people pretty much masters in their own house. And the main reason the Sionist radicals hated the British was that they blocked Jew immigration into Palestine and in the Sionists' mind were too much pro-Arab. All those motivations would be inexistent here, the British did let all the Jews in Germany/Austria/Czechia/Poland come to Africa, true, they let the Germans rob them in the process, but IMO resentment about forced explusion and confiscation of Jewish property is not strong enough to make the Jew immigrants organize the takeover of SAf (it's doubtful they have the numbers, yet) to betray the British Empire for Stalin. They would have no reason, except petty revenge. Greater South Africa is a good place to go, a lot of good land and natural resources, plenty of opportunity for a skillful immigrant population to build a good life. IMO the Jewish settlers are currently busy building their new lives and not carrying such a maddened grudge against Britain. They may feel funny when they are drafted and end up in Germany or alongisde German troops, which is why IMO the UK/Comm generals station SAf troops in non-European fronts. However, its also because of concerns like these that Goering has repealed the antisemite laws (in addtion to scoring brownie points with the British and American public).
 
Last edited:
I have been struggling to give Stalin a decent ally without falling into ASB-ness, possibly one that more firmly committs the Americans to the war and gives them something worthwhile to do, instead of just ganging up to the Soviets. Chiang might be a possibility, but he is too pathetic.
Not a lot of good options, I know. Sovs didn't have a lot of friends. Given so few choices, I'd go with Chiang if only for mutual necessity. Don't forget, SU gave GMD quite a bit of aid in the SJW, & fought Japan: "the enemy of my enemy" thing. In the same vein, how does India grab you? I have trouble believing real hostility to Britain, but... Iraq &/or Saudi, which OTL did rebel against colonial rule? Or, further afield (& increasingly less probable, IMO...), Brazil or Argentina?
I have also toyed up with the possibility of a coup in France by an unholy alliance of leftists and anti-German nationalists which places them on the Soviet side, but IMO it skirts ASB
You should avoid it, IMO; as you predict, IMO, the Allies'd almost immediately invade to crush it. Could you do it with a "Communist" win in the Spanish CW? (I can never keep straight if they're Republicans or Nationalists...:mad:)
Also be mindful of Persia. When the Soviets invade it, it indeed has some difficult terrain to surmount in Persia proper, not so bad as Afghanistan however, then it's all plain up to the urals. Terrible logistics, but the huge plains of Central Asia, a lot of room for British (and German) tanks.
Suits.:) I can picture (fairly) big tank battles in the plains & use of airborne in the mountains: 1st SSF? desantniki v Fallschirmjagern? Even (if it goes long enough) the 555h?
...IMO the Jewish settlers are currently busy building their new lives and not carrying such a maddened grudge against Britain...
I have no argument with that.:D Just wanted to raise the possibility, in case you hadn't considered it.
 

General Zod

Banned
Not a lot of good options, I know. Sovs didn't have a lot of friends.

Yep, Stalin's endearing regime combined with Hitler-like expansionist rabid dog antics shall win you a lot of friends... ;)

Given so few choices, I'd go with Chiang if only for mutual necessity. Don't forget, SU gave GMD quite a bit of aid in the SJW, & fought Japan: "the enemy of my enemy" thing.

Yep, but the point is, would Chiang even register as a worthwhile Soviet ally ? If the SU has to fight the British, the Germans, the Italians (pitiful as their contribution may be in comparison, but still), and the Japanese, not to mention the French when and if they put their house into order, all supported by an increasingly anti-Soviet USA with massive Land-Lease if nothing else, it has enough problems already fielding and supplying its own armies. Although I concede that in this scenario the SOviets would have little problems sending Chiandg supplies by land. I'm not that much convinced it could send supplies enough to make Chiang a worthwhile ally, albeit this scenario would convince the GMD and the CCP to make a really effective collaboration, which would improve things a bit for the Chinese. I'm also uncertain how many troops Stalin can spare to make an intervention in China and open a second front against the Japanese. Lack of troops with really decent training and equipment was what dragged Chiang down. Having plenty of that and some modern allied ground troops could change much.

Besides, in this scenario, the UK and the USA shall quickly bury any objection they might have had to Japanese expansion in China (afterwards it's a different issue), so the IJA would swim into oil supplied at generous prices by its own ally. Which should make them rather more able to fight both the Svoeits in Siberia and the United Front in China.

In sum, would China give any valid contribution to the SU, or be a burden like late Mussolini was to Germany IOTL ?

In the same vein, how does India grab you? I have trouble believing real hostility to Britain, but... Iraq &/or Saudi, which OTL did rebel against colonial rule?

Or, further afield (& increasingly less probable, IMO...), Brazil or Argentina?

I have given thought (and already included in the TL, even if I did not yet get to the point of giving it serious coverage, like France, even if it ought ot be next on the -very slow- line) to some serious Commie-supported insurgency in India (in other words, a serious speed bump for the Allies, but little more). I'm not convinced it could ever get any more success than the philo-Axis nationalists did IOTL. Afghanistan separates them from any serious Russian support. Could the Russians break out all the way to the Indus ?

As for nationalist Arabs, they lacked a serious pre-war Communist presence, and typically did not have much sympathy for Communism, but they joined that camp in the OTL Cold War, so yep it might be feasible, any devil to cast off British yoke. But again, would they avail to much ? If the encircled Soviets can make a strategic breakthrough in Caucasus, Persia, and Kurdistan (the Turks are no lightweights, but for the persians, it all depends how many British troops are stationed in Persia), yes, they can give support to the Arabs and alter the strategic balance as the Allies get critically dependent on DEI and US oil to keep fighting. Otherwise, they are yet another minor speed bump, and as the Allies row the Middle East machine-gunning uppity Arabs and in a few months all is over.

The Brazilians and the Argentinians are ASB in my opinion. Their various sponsors were the Germans, the British, and the Americans, all in the same side, and the ruling classes were fiercely anti-communist. The generals would eagerly put a gun to any president that dares think jumping in Stalin's boat, and machine-gun any mob that dares support it.

You should avoid it, IMO; as you predict, IMO, the Allies'd almost immediately invade to crush it.

Oh, yes, ultimately they would go down under Allied assault, but it would buy Stalin some serious breathing space (say half a year), which is more than you can say of any other alternative, except maybe an abundantly supplied Chiang. Also, it would rob the Allies from any serious contribution from France for almost an year, as they have to crush the pro-Soviet junta French Army, occupy the country, clean up the philo-Soviets, set up a new government, recruit a new French Army, reset French economy and in dustry to functionality... it's the worst "speed bump" for the Allies that I could think of.

Could you do it with a "Communist" win in the Spanish CW? (I can never keep straight if they're Republicans or Nationalists...:mad:)

Outside the boundaries of the scenario, I'm afraid. I cannot see how butterflies from Hitler's death in late 1938 and British-German detente could save the Republicans. At this point they had already lost the SCW. Even admitting you compress the development of the scenario (which would skirt unplausibility) and have Stalin decide a massive last-ditch Soviet intervention to save the Republicans, this would just accelerate the unfolding of the scenario and the formation of the Alliance. Panicked British and French would hastily chalk Stalin as the worst meance in Europe, join Germany and Italy in grand anti-Communist alliance, Allied fleets would cut any supply to the Soviet expeditionary corps in Spain, and Allied expeditionary coprs would eat the logistically-starving Soviets in a few months.

Suits.:) I can picture (fairly) big tank battles in the plains & use of airborne in the mountains: 1st SSF? desantniki v Fallschirmjagern? Even (if it goes long enough) the 555h?

All of that, sure. I think this WWII should last long enough to see some American boots on the ground. Stalin and the Red Army started the whole thing (even if it exploded to a general war much before they had planned, mch like for Germany in OTL 1939), so they had plenty of warning to deploy their forces. There shall not be any massive Barbarossa Blitzkrieg, rather the Allies using their superior industrial potential, the superior quality of their forces, and theri encirclement position to slowly bleed the Soviet manpower reserves white, and cut Soviet industrial potential down, as they make deeper and deeper inroads into Russia. No one big Barbarossa Blitzkrieg IMO, rather a string of Allied mobile offensives rather like the reverse of Soviet offensives in OTL 1943-45.
 
New York Times, 16 December, 1938.

the German leader reaffirmed the dedication of his nation to "peaceful and just coexistence in Europe", and affirmed the intangibility of the boundaries between Germany and all her Western and Southern neighbors,
\
While it is true that borders are intangible, this is hardly reassuring. 'Inviolability,' perhaps?
 
Yep, Stalin's endearing regime combined with Hitler-like expansionist rabid dog antics shall win you a lot of friends... ;)
Even discounting Russia's less than stellar history with neighbors.:(
Yep, but the point is, would Chiang even register as a worthwhile Soviet ally?
...
In sum, would China give any valid contribution to the SU, or be a burden like late Mussolini was to Germany IOTL ?
Put that way, ROC doesn't look promising. It'd probably end up a North Asian Italy.

It does raise one prospect I rather like: a U.S.-brokered peace deal between Japan & China, & a possible joint alliance against the SU. (I'd considered it myself, but was never really sure it was credible. Here, it might be.)
I have given thought (and already included in the TL, even if I did not yet get to the point of giving it serious coverage, like France, even if it ought ot be next on the -very slow- line) to some serious Commie-supported insurgency in India (in other words, a serious speed bump for the Allies, but little more). I'm not convinced it could ever get any more success than the philo-Axis nationalists did IOTL. Afghanistan separates them from any serious Russian support. Could the Russians break out all the way to the Indus ?
Break out? I very much doubt it: recall all those d*mn mountains.:eek: If mujahedin can make it difficult for Red Army, just imagine what Monty could do.

OTOH, if you can engineer an Indian Communist Party government, you might play on Indian hostility to China. Ditto Vietnam (Laos, too? Presuming it's separate then; IIRC, it isn't.). There's a thread here on WI this happened you might look for (if you haven't seen it yet); sorry, don't recall the exact name, but "Communist" & "India" should turn it up.
As for nationalist Arabs...
Yeah, it's "6 of one": anti-Brit, but not pro-Com. I come back to "the enemy of my enemy", tho. Also, it'd offer a chance to manipulate access to oil. That, in turn, might encourage exploration in "safe" areas like Venezuela & Prairie Canada... (OK, I'm showing some bias.:p)
The Brazilians and the Argentinians are ASB in my opinion.
Noted. I couldn't think of anybody else.:p (I ruled out Klingons & Cardassians by default.:D)
Oh, yes, ultimately they would go down under Allied assault...
It's worth thinking about. Stalin would have no trouble sacrificing Frenchmen if it bought him time. I don't think he'd do it for sport, so you'd have to "pick the spot" carefully.
Outside the boundaries of the scenario, I'm afraid.
Noted. Again, I couldn't think of anybody else. (Y'know, it makes me think just how even WW2 seems by contrast.)
All of that, sure. I think this WWII should last long enough to see some American boots on the ground. Stalin and the Red Army started the whole thing (even if it exploded to a general war much before they had planned, mch like for Germany in OTL 1939), so they had plenty of warning to deploy their forces. There shall not be any massive Barbarossa Blitzkrieg, rather the Allies using their superior industrial potential, the superior quality of their forces, and theri encirclement position to slowly bleed the Soviet manpower reserves white, and cut Soviet industrial potential down, as they make deeper and deeper inroads into Russia. No one big Barbarossa Blitzkrieg IMO, rather a string of Allied mobile offensives rather like the reverse of Soviet offensives in OTL 1943-45.
It has a very WW1 kind of feel, to me. It's almost the traditional pic of a U.S.-PRC war: U.S. has lots of tech, PRC has millions of men... I wonder if SU industrial production can match U.S. (presuming fewer POWs, so less need to scrape the barrel for manpower).

Still, would Stalin be willing to send women into action?:cool: (I like the idea of Red Air Force women's fighter units. Maybe encourage "Allied" ones, too?) And how would the "Western Allies" react to fighting, killing, women? Does that actually give SU a psych edge?

There's a lot of interesting implications & possibilities, here. I am looking foward to it.:cool:
 
Still, would Stalin be willing to send women into action?:cool: (I like the idea of Red Air Force women's fighter units. Maybe encourage "Allied" ones, too?) And how would the "Western Allies" react to fighting, killing, women? Does that actually give SU a psych edge?

The initial reaction would be shock, I guess.
However, a bullet or grenade fired by a woman would kill you just as dead as one fired by a man, so after an initial phase of adjusting to the new situation, it would be just like fighting against men.

Although I could imagine rape of captured female soldiers becoming a problem. It happened on the German side, it happened on the Japanese side, and it sure as hell also happened on the Allies' side.

During war, most of an infantryman's humanity is stripped away/suppressed and he is more likely to commit acts he would otherwise not even contemplate, especially against an opponent who just killed a number of his comrades.

The only way to counter this would be draconian measures against rapists implemented by the army leadership.
 
The inducements I envisaged is twofold: first, Germany does confiscate Jwesih property and uses part of the wealth to finance Jewish immigration to British Africa. Second, most of the Jewish immigration is not initially directed to South Africa proper, rather to the neighboring territories of South West Africa, Beciuanaland, and Southern Rhodesia, the latter two of which Britain does control directly. British government, confident that Jewish immigration substantially boosts the white population in those colonies, agrees to hand them over (and Germany gives up its old claims on South West Africa) to the South Africa Dominion, which therefore agrees to the plan in exchange for massive territorial expansion in resource-rich lands. A minority of the Jewsih immigration is directed to Kenya and Uganda, anyway.

Late Reponse!

Britain didn't control S Rhodesia directly, it had been given responsible government in the 1920s, and prior to that it was ruled by the BSAC. So far as I can tell in practice the powers and responsibilities of the Settler Government from this point were not far removed from the so called "White Dominions". Which is one reason why S Rhodesia was able to do its own thing right up until it lost the Bush War and came to a negotiated settlement.

I don't really have any idea what S Rhodesia European politics or culture was like in the 1930s, so how they would respond to a request to settle vast numbers of non Anglo migrants is outside of my understanding. I suspect though that they wouldn't agree to it, based on the fact that they would therefore be put in a position where they may not be able to control the country anymore. I don't think that people acted on the basis of white solidarity then (or indeed now), I suspect it was more on the basis of Anglo solidarity and E European immigrants of any religion are effectively as big a threat to local control as say being vastly outnumbered by local indigenous populations
 
Last edited:
Top