The Weapons of Communist Germany in WWII

Red Germany was quite a favorite topic here,and most posters agreed that in alliance with the Soviet Union it would launch a Second World War in the name of international revolution and territories stolen after the Great War.

The question is,how different weapon systems they would deploy compared to Nazi Germany?They would probably avoid the overengineering of the Nazis and possible logistical integration with the Soviet Union(i assume Soviet weapon development is pretty similar to OTL)

Tanks-Soviet influence probably similar to early Panther prototypes but lighter,more emphasis on medium tanks(no encounter with KV ITTL)
Aviation-Soviets might have better planes due to longer lasting industrial cooperation
Naval-Probably not much different to OTL,no way could hope to match the RN

Rockets,jets and assault rifles-How pressured would Communist Germany make them?Would they be introduced earlier or later than OTL?

Any additions or ideas?
 
Last edited:
When do the Communists take power in Germany? In 1919 or 1930s? Because the two choices lead to very different outcomes. A revolution in 1919 likely means we're talking about a German led alliance (Germany is by far the stronger country, and Lenin was basically willing to accept subordination to Germany in international affairs on the grounds that advanced countries would lead the revolution) and it would probably cripple Stalin's rise to power (the instigating factor of which was that no other countries besides Russia went through a revolution). So a situation that is radically and totally different from OTL. On the other hand by the 30s the various communist parties were hollowed out by Stalins sycophants, who would likely act as subordinates to him simply because it's the behavior they'd most gotten used to. So more of the weaponry and design philosophy resembles their russian equivalents because thats where the orders come from. Although the planes are still probably better.

For 1919, it's really hard to say but my impulse is that they'd probably go for something which resembles OTL but with tanks more like the Soviets.
 
I was thinking of Darkest Hour so 1930s,but 1919 is interesting too.

1919 is a bit too much change to the point where weapons might be less important than the other stuff, which would be hugely different (I can't really state how different the USSR would act if it had an industrialized ally, beyond that almost every single major foreign policy and domestic decision made by the Soviets was informed by that isolation).
 
Definitely more fast, cruiser tanks with sloped armour and Christie suspension.

With luck, Simonov or Federov would perfect their (medium caliber) assault rifles/carbines during the 1930s.

Overall, Communist German weapons would combine the best of both systems: Russian simplicity off mass production with German precise on the few components that needed to be most precise.

Communist German paratroopers would combine Russian initiative with German planning (think about all the reversals that built up to Fallschirmjagers success at as an Emal). Without fascist Italian influence, Fallschirmjagers would never have wasted time only the antiquated Salvatore (sp?) harness. Instead, Communist Fallschirmjagers would have worn modern, vertical "Irvin" harnesses and soon learned how to jump with mountain rucksacks.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
... a more general problem of this "liason" : the technological expertise the germans had - in 1919 as well as 1930 - was not only a result of capitalistic drive for the "ever better product" to sell and make money with, but also of free thinking and being free to object and reject "official" solutions.

... sounds not somehting any communist regime would or even could allow easily.
 
... a more general problem of this "liason" : the technological expertise the germans had - in 1919 as well as 1930 - was not only a result of capitalistic drive for the "ever better product" to sell and make money with, but also of free thinking and being free to object and reject "official" solutions.

... sounds not somehting any communist regime would or even could allow easily.

That would depend on which 'communists' end up running Germany. There were a number of revolutionary socialist groups in Germany which disagreed with Lenin's anti-democratic and control economy approach. You presume that a socialist regime in Germany (calling it communist doesn't make much sense, especially in an era where 'communism' still generally meant Marxist communism, which isn't something you just 'put in place') would match the Leninist model, which is not a guarantee.

Also, we should get a few things straight, especially given the era we are talking about. Capitalism does not drive innovation, the free market does. They are not necessarily intertwined, and there are plenty of socialist theories that incorporate a free market. Even Marx wasn't against people being able to make and sell their own products. What he was against was private ownership of capital (skimming excess profit from labor).

So, again, it really depends on what kind of socialist regime we are seeing in Germany. Luxemburgists? Bolsheviks? Something else? I suspect that whatever ideology runs Germany, Lenin will have to follow suit. If you end up seeing a democratic, market-driven socialist regime, you may even see a healthier Germany, as the power of the industrialists in Germany would be broken.
 
... a more general problem of this "liason" : the technological expertise the germans had - in 1919 as well as 1930 - was not only a result of capitalistic drive for the "ever better product" to sell and make money with, but also of free thinking and being free to object and reject "official" solutions.

... sounds not somehting any communist regime would or even could allow easily.

There's nothing ideological about poor products from nations governed by socialists. It was just a product of poor design philosophies, inadequate facilities for making much better, and inadequate education of designers. Marx actually defined the only real form of value as use value. As in the actual use it is intended for and how well it fulfills that purpose. The capitalist profit motive often works in that direction but it's obscured by a layer of mystification which puts profit before "making a better product" if they ever actually are in competition.

A large part of the early faulty design of soviet weaponry and vehicles was that there was a very real political division between professional (intelligentsia) white collar workers and blue collar workers. The intelligentsia as a rule was anti-Bolshevik, which meant that early on Russia suffered extreme brain drain and the remaining intelligentsia was always treated as politically suspect. In Germany the SDP and socialist ideas had far more presence among engineers and professional laborers outside of the poorest in the cities. So they're more likely to quickly accept the new social order and not receive quite so much avid political persecution. Ergo, German design philosophy likely retains a lot of its previous elements.
 
That would depend on which 'communists' end up running Germany. There were a number of revolutionary socialist groups in Germany which disagreed with Lenin's anti-democratic and control economy approach. You presume that a socialist regime in Germany (calling it communist doesn't make much sense, especially in an era where 'communism' still generally meant Marxist communism, which isn't something you just 'put in place') would match the Leninist model, which is not a guarantee.

Also, we should get a few things straight, especially given the era we are talking about. Capitalism does not drive innovation, the free market does. They are not necessarily intertwined, and there are plenty of socialist theories that incorporate a free market. Even Marx wasn't against people being able to make and sell their own products. What he was against was private ownership of capital (skimming excess profit from labor).

So, again, it really depends on what kind of socialist regime we are seeing in Germany. Luxemburgists? Bolsheviks? Something else? I suspect that whatever ideology runs Germany, Lenin will have to follow suit. If you end up seeing a democratic, market-driven socialist regime, you may even see a healthier Germany, as the power of the industrialists in Germany would be broken.

Paul Levi and Paul Mattick really made mountains out of the molehills of disagreement between Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin. They disagreed on a handful of issues. None of which as fundamental as later writers have made them out to be. The whole dispute comes from a mass historical forgetting of the fact that they were both in favor of soviet republics, in Lenins case what's forgotten is what that means, and in Luxemburgs case that it was the same thing as what Lenin advocated. Soviets as the democratic organs of working class control of the economy and state. It was not Lenins evil intent, but the civil war, the Chekav and increasing hopelessness that ultimately killed the democratic nature of the soviets in Russia. What would be key for Germany would be making the civil war short so that the German councils aren't degraded into rubber stamps for war policy.
 
Any additions or ideas?

Honestly, it's not going to be that different. Maybe there will be more emphasis on production of a simplified Bergmann design (and less emphasis on rifles,) but by and large German small arms aren't going to vary that much unless doctrine is radically different, and that's not really likely to happen.

Tanks and the like are going to be a bit lighter, and cheaper to produce, but that's more because you don't have Hitler than anything else.
 
Top