Western Allies vs. Soviets vs. Nazis

Let's suppose, somehow, Operation Barbarossa and the bombing of Pearl Harbour happened at approximately same time. For the sake of discussion, let's say September 1941, so Barbarossa is delayed by three months while Pearl Harbour is sped up by same amount of time.

What if, in this scenario, Britain and USA decide that it will be better to get rid of all Totalitarianism at once, and therefore extending the declaration of war to the USSR too?

Because of the Barbarossa, Western democracies are perfectly assured that the Nazis and Soviets will never ever working together, so they feel confident enough that, after the Axis and Commies exhausted themselves up, they shall be able to liberate all of the Eurasia by themselves.

So, will the Western Allies succeed?
 
All the allies need to do is wait for the Nazis and Commies to wear themselves down and knock out the winner (likely the Soviets), of course, they'll still have Japan to deal with.
Not to say it'd be easy. The Nazi-Soviet theater will drag on for a little longer without lend-lease, the Soviets could still win, but they'll be in worse shape by the time they reach Berlin, if they reach Berlin.
And the US will probably have the A-bomb by that time.

Democracy wank.
 
Or maybe the West, in memory of both the Winter War and their part in the invasion of Poland, refuses anything but cash-and-carry to the Soviets (and maybe 'borrows' some Norwegian pilots to overfly aircraft over Norway to get around Germany's restriction). This is more likely IMO, because I really doubt either Barbarossa or Pearl Harbour could or would really be shifted that far.
 
Well i think Roosevelt dclaring war on the USSR at that time would just about as big a mistake as Hitler starting Barbarossa.

The USA had at thhat time no means to attack the USSR, they would first have to go through Japan or Germany. In that time the USSR can prepare itself not only to beat the Germans(which they will) but also the Allies(with the UK as its first target).

I would wonder what actions the Soviets would actually undertake. Would they attack Japan early? Would they, with intel on USA, speed up their nuclear program? Would they attack Iran or Afganistan? Would they allign the Chinese?

After August 1943, its all in the hands of the Soviets. Whatever they have build up by then will be ready to go against whatever target they choose first. Meanwhile the USA hasn't even taken Tarawa from the Japanese and only just invaded mainland Italy. They won't plan Overlord that soon, not without pressure from the Soviets.
 
Well i think Roosevelt dclaring war on the USSR at that time would just about as big a mistake as Hitler starting Barbarossa.

The USA had at thhat time no means to attack the USSR, they would first have to go through Japan or Germany. In that time the USSR can prepare itself not only to beat the Germans(which they will) but also the Allies(with the UK as its first target).
I think maybe you missed the fact that it was only through Lend-Lease that the Soviets managed to push the Germans back so strongly, sans US, or with the US as enemies, they'll win Stalingrad, but then will face the same thing for the rest of the war, either because they've got virtually no trucks, or because they've got a lot fewer tanks.

I would wonder what actions the Soviets would actually undertake. Would they attack Japan early? Would they, with intel on USA, speed up their nuclear program? Would they attack Iran or Afganistan? Would they allign the Chinese?
All of this requires diverting resources away from the German front, and the Germans are stressing them enough as it is.
 
The Western Allies don't need to declare war on the Soviet Union, just not accept them as allies.
This would actually suit American ambitions nicely as well. By not forming an alliance, The Soviets are not bound to respect British spheres of influence in the middle east, the Soviets would quite happily continue espionage and insurgency efforts in the middle east, Greece etc which would in time weaken Britain for the post war period.

The Soviets would finally overwhelm the Nazis. By sheer weight of numbers if nothing else, but, American food and Trucks aside, the Soviets could and did produce pretty much everything else themselves. It could potentially drag the war in Europe onwards, certainly on the Eastern Front, but it does leave the Western Allies free to persue a seperate peace.

So, post war in the event of a seperate peace?
The Soviet Union would be much weaker physically, but much stronger ideologically so after a period of recovery, probably about 20 years, the COmmunist bloc could last through to the 21st century. Soviet Territory: Soviet Poland and Soviet Finland are a very real possibility. If there is no one else to guarentee its existance, Germany could well disappear into seperate Soviet States with potentially France, with British and US backing, annexing as far as the Rheinland before the Soviets got there.

With no one looking over their shoulder, I think the Soviets would roll straight into and over Finland. Sweden would be watching very very closely and I suspect that the Western Allies would have to guarentee Sweden's "Neutrality" to prevent the Soviets trying to make a claim on parts of Sweden they fancy, however Finland would really be the last possible extension until VE +20yrs, (roughly).

Far East: Land War rolls back at a slightly faster pace, but not much. Island Hopping campaign again moves slightly faster with the home Islands under siege by May 1945. I'm not sure the Japanese could physically survive 3 more months of siege, but if they do, Fat man and little boy pay a visit as per OTL. Differences: No split Korea and no split Vietnam. No Korean war although I think the Vietnam war will be close to the OLT issues, but across all of FIC. Soviets not really able to give much support to the Chi-Coms, whilst west offer more support to Chi-Nats. China will explode into civil war eventually with a Chi-Com win, but I think you're looking at VJ +10 - +15 years before hand.

Of course, this is just my opinion based on gut instinct and with no real research, but that could make for an interesting timeline.
 
The Soviets would finally overwhelm the Nazis. By sheer weight of numbers if nothing else, but, American food and Trucks aside, the Soviets could and did produce pretty much everything else themselves.
Well, apart from trains (they produced only 92 of their own, but receives some 2,000 from the US, and 11,000 railcars), aircraft (the WAllies shipped or flew some 18,700 to Russia), telephone cable, clothing, and a good load of aluminium. Also, the food was a double bonus, not only did it feed the soldiers, it allowed them to join the army rather than having to stay on the farm.

The Soviet Union would be much weaker physically, but much stronger ideologically so after a period of recovery, probably about 20 years, the COmmunist bloc could last through to the 21st century.
The Cold War would be much less of a big thing though, as the SU would most likely be somewhat smaller (I doubt Poland would be happy to join, or many of the other European nations that ended up in the Warsaw Pact)

Soviet Territory: Soviet Poland and Soviet Finland are a very real possibility.
Depends on how fast they move, but I don't think they could get both, not with having to supply all their own logistics.

If there is no one else to guarentee its existance, Germany could well disappear into seperate Soviet States with potentially France, with British and US backing, annexing as far as the Rheinland before the Soviets got there.
Again, they have to decide whether to punish Germany, or have a second go at the Winter War.

No split Korea and no split Vietnam.
Don't know about Vietnam, but I think you're right to call off the Korean split, Neither Japan nor Russia will be in much of a position to contests American liberation of the entire peninsula.

Soviets not really able to give much support to the Chi-Coms, whilst west offer more support to Chi-Nats. China will explode into civil war eventually with a Chi-Com win, but I think you're looking at VJ +10 - +15 years before hand.
That sounds about right too, although maybe if they find a more moderate leader instead of Chiang the place could avoid the the isolation and screwups Mao brought.
 
Depends on how fast they move, but I don't think they could get both, not with having to supply all their own logistics.

Again, they have to decide whether to punish Germany, or have a second go at the Winter War.

I don't think speed would really be an issue if the W/Allies and Nazi's could agree a seperate peace. The Soviets have to advance through Poland et al to get to Germany & Austria.
However, the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that the Soviets would go after Finland later if they accept Finnish capitulation on the OTL terms. If they don't, then I suspect the Finnish SSR is a foregone conclusion. However, it would be bloody and long with plenty of staunchly anti communist volunteers joining the fight, maybe as late as VE+5 years
 
I think maybe you missed the fact that it was only through Lend-Lease that the Soviets managed to push the Germans back so strongly, sans US, or with the US as enemies, they'll win Stalingrad, but then will face the same thing for the rest of the war, either because they've got virtually no trucks, or because they've got a lot fewer tanks.

Well that might be partially true. Bu don't forget Barbarossa was delayed for 4 months. So the molotov line would have been completed, delaying the advances of the Germans and giving the Soviets even more time. In that time they surely would be able to compensate their lack of mobility of their supply routes and come with a near same counter offensive as OTL.

There is a good chance the siege of Leningrad and Case blue and such might not happen because of the different circumstances(Moscow might even be taken). But in the end the Germans will loose, just as big as they did in OTL.
 
War against the Nazis is one thing - but war with the Soviets will result in a mass peace movement, and in revolts within the governments of the allied nations themselves. This is hand waving the fact that Churchill and FDR both want a Soviet alliance.

People will let stand by and let Mosley be imprisoned, but not Labour MPs and Trade Unionists. The backlash against WWI style patriotism is still too strong. This will kill Britain's mythic national unity dead. America won't be as bad, but FDR will lose a lot of friends (not to mention the support of his own Vice-President) and will be carrying out a policy more suited to his more wacky Republican opponents.

This isn't the 50's, this is a time when claiming Stalin was a tyrant would have had smart intellectual types, up and including Conservative MPs and high society ladies, rolling their eyes at you and sniggering at your knee jerk anti-Commuism. The concept of "Totalitarianism" as something that included both the Nazis and the Soviets isn't even popular beyond a few lone voices who were considered nut cases.

People in these discussions often seem to overestimate the will power of the West - people in this period aren't democracy drones happy to slaughter and nuke their way through Eurasia.
 
Last edited:
Well that might be partially true. Bu don't forget Barbarossa was delayed for 4 months. So the molotov line would have been completed, delaying the advances of the Germans and giving the Soviets even more time.
My mistake, I was just automatically using my scenario, since I'm of the opinion that Hitler would not (and perhaps could not, he does want to take Moscow after all) delay Barbarossa that long, even if Pearl were moved up.
 
Allies win in Norway early, mainly at sea.

They then strongarm Sweden (just like the nazis OTL) into allowing their troops to transfer into Finland. With the extra support, Finland hangs on a bit more, just enough for the spring floods to arrive and effectively stop fighting.

Early defensive victories against the paratroopers in the Netherlands and against Hoth's panzers at Gembleux give the Allies a bit of victory disease, and so they launch Operation Pike (also hoping it will scare Stalin enough so that he calls of his soon-to-break-through offensive in Finland, thus sparing London and Paris a hummiliating defeat).

The bombers do some damage until the soviets cram the area with AAA and fighters, while also sending their own bombers to (rather ineffectually) bomb Iraq and Syria.

Shortly after, the allied positions, both in Finland and in France collapse. By now, public opinion should be turning against the soviets, especially if news of "massacres in Finland" and "bombing of civilians in the middle east" keeps being reported in the news.

While there is a chance London might make peace with Stalin at this point, there is also a chance it wouldn't.

The following year, Hitler backstabs Stalin, and, hey presto, you've got a 3-way war going on.
 
Top