USSR joins the Axis Powers
- Thread starter Utahwriter15
- Start date
- Status
Deleted member 1487
How would it happen? I'd imagine the British would freak out and bomb Baku, which would cause a Soviet invasion of Iran and Turkey, creating the Middle Eastern Front, while the Soviets perhaps send an expeditionary bomber force to France to bomb Britain like Italy did. Soviet four engine night bombers would be useful, as would their more modern bombers. If they could build up the necessary infrastructure they could always spam Britain with a lot of fighters and wear the Brits down. Soviet paratroopers would be useful against Britain.
I have to repeat this question. How would it happen?
The Axis came together as an alliance AGAINST communism. This seems rather hard.
How? The "Axis" was an informal name for the Anti-Comintern Pact. True, by 1940 the explicit anti-Communist element was played down, but it was still there.
And the entire lebensraum ideology of Germany was directed toward territorial expansion in the East.
One would have to change several things drastically beforehand for Germany and the USSR to become explicit allies.
Deleted member 1487
While hill-walking in the Tyrol, Hitler is butted by a mountain goat and falls some distance before striking his head and suffering a traumatic brain injury.
Upon waking, he displays significant changes to his personality, speaking of the inopportune ratio of the distance to Moscow compared with the rail capacity that goes there, and concludes that he cannot beat the Soviets so he should join them.
But that would be Germany joining up with the Soviets. What happens to the rest of the Axis powers? Japan? Italy?
I suppose Germany and the Soviet Union would encourage Japan to strike south and Italy to continue its war with Britain.
jahenders
Banned
It would have taken the creation of a different axis (without an anti-communist bent). Instead, its focus could be on "getting a fair share of colonial dominance."
Assuming they can all somehow agree (and trust each other enough to agree), then it's (obviously) huge. Russia might send some token units to France, but I can't see Russia really moving large forces across Europe (nor Germany wanting them to). Russia would probably focus on the Middle East, trying to push through Iraq, Syria, etc to Egypt and/or India. If they don't attack Turkey, they'll likely force them to allow Russian naval units free transit from the Black Sea. Ultimately though, without the existential threat to its survival, Russia gets far less invested in the war. So, it's not really like adding Russia of WWII to the Axis, it's about 50-70% of that strength.
This allows Romanian forces to focus in the Balkans, Italy to focus in Africa, etc. Germany is free to take France, mess with Britain, and devote more resources to Africa. This frees up some Japanese forces for use in China or elsewhere.
Assuming they can all somehow agree (and trust each other enough to agree), then it's (obviously) huge. Russia might send some token units to France, but I can't see Russia really moving large forces across Europe (nor Germany wanting them to). Russia would probably focus on the Middle East, trying to push through Iraq, Syria, etc to Egypt and/or India. If they don't attack Turkey, they'll likely force them to allow Russian naval units free transit from the Black Sea. Ultimately though, without the existential threat to its survival, Russia gets far less invested in the war. So, it's not really like adding Russia of WWII to the Axis, it's about 50-70% of that strength.
This allows Romanian forces to focus in the Balkans, Italy to focus in Africa, etc. Germany is free to take France, mess with Britain, and devote more resources to Africa. This frees up some Japanese forces for use in China or elsewhere.
Stalin sits around and watches while Germany and Japan get their faces smashed in by the Anglo-Americans before backstabbing them at the last minute.
Yup, sounds like Stalin. I remember reading that one of the reasons the idea of the SU joining the Axis Powers was because neither Stalin nor Hitler trusted each other. As a matter of fact, both expected the other to backstab sooner or later, and Stalin was only surprised by just how quickly Hitler did it.
Even if the SU eventually joins the Axis, I can't see them fully mobilizing and using all they've got in the war. Perhaps attacking the Middle east and India like an user suggested, but sending divisions to France or trying to help in a Battle of Britain is out of the question. Supporting Axis Forces in Africa could be possible, though. By far, the biggest contribution would be material. They could supply Japan with oil if Japan decides to stay in the Axis along with the SU, thus the USA's entry in the war could be delayed.
IMO we'd have had a Nazi Controlled Europe, and a Russian Controlled Asia. Japanese Controlled SE Asia.
Eventually war between USSR and Germany would have broken out...
I believe I remember reading Germany put 80% of its forces on the eastern front and 20% on the west against France/GB/US??? Is this correct?
How could we have possibly battles them at 100%?
Eventually war between USSR and Germany would have broken out...
I believe I remember reading Germany put 80% of its forces on the eastern front and 20% on the west against France/GB/US??? Is this correct?
How could we have possibly battles them at 100%?
Well, since France was already defeated the only part all those troops could have gone would have been North africa and the Balkans. Defeating the UK would need a succesful Sea Lion and that's just impossible. And defeating the US would be even more tricky and unless Germany creates a stalamete situation were the cost of victory would be too high and the American popular opinion is against the war, then they can't win (also, if the US complete their atomic bomb and Germany is still there, the US will quite probably use it). Nonetheless, all those troops could be useful to prevent something like D-Day from happening or helping Italy.
@Red Galiray
I don't see the US being able to successfully complete a DDay invasion with more German divisions stationed on the western front since they theoretically would need less to protect there eastern front.
Big bomb does throw a wrench into plans. How strong would German Air and radar be at that time? I thought there were "ruling the skies" up until shortly after DDay on the western front?
I don't see the US being able to successfully complete a DDay invasion with more German divisions stationed on the western front since they theoretically would need less to protect there eastern front.
Big bomb does throw a wrench into plans. How strong would German Air and radar be at that time? I thought there were "ruling the skies" up until shortly after DDay on the western front?
Yes, I can't see them doing so either. An attack to Italy is out of the question too if the Germans decide to use all those troops to protect their ally.
I'm not an expert in German technology during WWII, so I can't really say wheter or not they would be able to detect a nuclear bomb.
While I am aware that ideas about a Nazi-Soviet alliance were considered, the whole point of Nazism was, ultimately, the conquest and colonization of most of European Soviet Union, the erasure of the very memory of anything it stood for, the physical annihilation of much of its people, and the perpetual enslavement of the majority of the rest. The entire Nazi ideology in wartime was predicated upon the notion that a major portion of Soviet peoples (and the Jews, of course) did not count as fully human.
While not ideologically committed to that set of concepts, the Japanese Imperial leadership appears to me to have been as rabidly anti-communist as the Nazis.
In general, every stripe of Fascism is constructed upon some variation of the idea that Communism is the ultimate evil, and, in particular, upon the premise that the most morally appealing aspects of it are both factually wrong and mortally dangerous.*
It is hard to see an Axis-Soviet alliance that is not tactical co-belligerance. Even there, it won't last.
* The same could be easily argued about the relationship between the basic underpinnings of Fascism and Christianity, which did not actually impede cooperative relations and even intermingling - which, note, were often predicated upon the common struggle against Communism.
While not ideologically committed to that set of concepts, the Japanese Imperial leadership appears to me to have been as rabidly anti-communist as the Nazis.
In general, every stripe of Fascism is constructed upon some variation of the idea that Communism is the ultimate evil, and, in particular, upon the premise that the most morally appealing aspects of it are both factually wrong and mortally dangerous.*
It is hard to see an Axis-Soviet alliance that is not tactical co-belligerance. Even there, it won't last.
* The same could be easily argued about the relationship between the basic underpinnings of Fascism and Christianity, which did not actually impede cooperative relations and even intermingling - which, note, were often predicated upon the common struggle against Communism.
It could be argued that they did, albeit temporarily. The Soviet Union's annexation of the Baltic States, co-invasion of Poland and the Winter War were because of the non-aggression pact signed with Nazi Germany. It also had the effect of keeping Hitler's back safe while he dealt with France & Britain.
If, however, they decided a full, war fighting alliance was in their best interests, Britain would have almost certainly sued for peace. There is no way they could keep the Red Army from marching to the Persian Gulf.
If, however, they decided a full, war fighting alliance was in their best interests, Britain would have almost certainly sued for peace. There is no way they could keep the Red Army from marching to the Persian Gulf.
It's a common trope, but not really true.
From the start of BARBAROSSA in 1941, 80% of the German army and most of the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern Front, as was 100% of the Romanian, Finnish, and Hungarian armies, and part of the Italian army. However, the rest of the Italian Army, the Italian navy, most of the German navy, and the rest of the Luftwaffe were engaged against Britain.
As the war continued, a higher proportion of the German army was engaged in the west and the Mediterranean. More Germans were captured in Tunisia in May 1943 than at Stalingrad in February. (Of course at lot more were killed in the East.)
During the Sicily campaign, German troops were shifted from the East to Italy. Many more German troops were transferred or allocated west after Italy surrendered.
The main strength of the Luftwaffe was committed to the air defense of Germany. A huge force of anti-aircraft guns and crewmen were deployed against British and American bombers (~500,000 troops). It's been estimated that 1/3 of all German ammunition was fired up.
By D-Day, about 30% of the army was on the Atlantic or in Italy, a proportion that increased greatly by fall 1944. (Another 25% was in Norway, Denmark, Germany, and the Balkans; the remaining 55% was in the east.)
By that time there was approximate parity between Germany's eastern and western/southern front, which continued through the rest of the war.
jahenders
Banned
D-Day would have been extremely difficult. The Germans would have, not only more divisions there, but they'd also have far more airpower available and better reserves of fuel and ammunition.
The Germans didn't really "rule the skies" until near D-Day, but they could send up a sizeable enough force to cause heavy losses to the (generally unescorted) bombers. Though they suffered severe losses, the bombers DID still get through. Perhaps with stronger Luftwaffe presence in the West, the USAAF would have sooner given up the idea of unescorted, daylight bombing raids.
That being said, before the A-bomb was ready, 8th AF was already starting to prepare some UK airfields for the B-29. Even strengthened, the Germans would have had a hard time preventing a flight of B-29s from getting through with an atom bomb, though they might have had a hard time getting to Berlin. They might have had to settle for Hamburg or Bremen.
The Germans didn't really "rule the skies" until near D-Day, but they could send up a sizeable enough force to cause heavy losses to the (generally unescorted) bombers. Though they suffered severe losses, the bombers DID still get through. Perhaps with stronger Luftwaffe presence in the West, the USAAF would have sooner given up the idea of unescorted, daylight bombing raids.
That being said, before the A-bomb was ready, 8th AF was already starting to prepare some UK airfields for the B-29. Even strengthened, the Germans would have had a hard time preventing a flight of B-29s from getting through with an atom bomb, though they might have had a hard time getting to Berlin. They might have had to settle for Hamburg or Bremen.
While Hitler was without a doubt a lunatic, so that arguments is there... Americam Democracy was at that time and following extremely anti communism as well. So there could be an argument that while the Americans didn't trust or like the Soviets, they sided with them to rid of a common enemy. Hitler attempted the same, but let himself get tied into a multi front war that was then luckily doomed...
- Status