WI: Cold War with a much bigger Communist Bloc in Europe

RousseauX

Donor
Historically the division of Europe occurred at middle of Germany in 1945. What if for whatever reason, the Red Army goes much further?

Suppose in TTL, the Western Allies gets unlucky/does worse, maybe the US enters the war significantly later because FDR died early. Maybe the Red army doesn't get purged as hard and does better in 1941. And by 1945-46, Nazi Germany is defeated and the Red Army overruns Europe. The dividing line between blue and red is in France and Italy. There is a Communist French Socialist Republic controlling Paris, much of the industrial areas and much of the interior and a non-Communist French Republic based on the channel/Atlantic coasts and the south. There is also a divided Italy, with a Communist north Socialist Republic of Italy controlling Rome and a "Nationalist" South.

All of Germany, Austria, Greece etc are occupied by the red army and the Soviets install Communist governments. This ttl's NATO would compose only of Turkey, Spain, non-Communist France, South Italy and the Benelux countries on the continent.

How would this Cold War play out? Communism still has its structural weaknesses and a larger Soviet bloc means more "independent reds" might revolt like Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia etc. And the Soviets needs to spend much more on subsidies and internal bloc stability. OTOH, the capitalist bloc is much smaller. Does the US plays much more aggressively to contain Communism in China and East Asia, let along Africa in this time line? Is there still Detente, does Communism fall on schedule, fall earlier, or last into the 21st century?
 
Last edited:
You bring up Yugoslavia, and I think that's a decent starting point. Yugoslavia historically collapsed when Tito died, and this wouldn't change that, so it's likely that Yugoslavia would fall on schedule unless it adopted Soviet-style communism, although even then it might still fall in schedule as there was nobody to replace Tito. Economic unity throughout Eastern and central Europe would certainly make for a very strong Eastern alliance, but the logistical difficulties of maintaining such a large area of influence would likely take it's toll on the Soviet economy and military strength. Britain would still act as a western powerhouse, and might actually decolonize later out of fear of a red revolution. Western nations would militarize more heavily as well, likely out of fear. Among the best interesting if consequences, though, is that Paris would be held by the Communists, so French Indochina, including Vietnam, would become communist peacefully and much sooner. French Indochina also probably wouldn't have been decolonized and France would continue to hold it. As a result, the Vietnam war never happens, strengthening western morale and removing that economic and military sinkhole for the United States. However, the Soviet Union gains influence in southeast Asia, and may retain it's alliance with China, forgoing the Sino-Soviet split. A split is unfavorable towards China, as the Soviet Union is highly influential in the region, so the Chinese will likely be loyal to the Soviets. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan still happens, and, because both the United States and Russia are strengthened, a similar result is seen. However, the influx of raw resources from the East provides a boost to the Soviet economy if it's allowed to work. The Chinese and Soviets still likely won't have much trade between them, as a result of their economic structure, so the only resources the Soviets gain are from the pseudo-colony of French Indochina. A combination of the collapse of Yugoslavia within the USSR's de facto territory and the economic downturn brought by Afghanistan destabilize the Soviet hold on Central Europe as cultural tensions rise with the failing economy. France soon leaves the Eastern bloc, followed by Germany, and Soviet influence throughout the globe shrinks. Now the Vietnam war finally happens, destabilizing southeast Asia and damaging the Chinese economy. The Soviet Union falls probably around the mid-1990s, the United States invades Vietnam around 1991, and the Chinese economy falls into a depression. Mao Zedong's cultural revolution had still occurred, but was more successful as it adopted Soviet-style communism instead of Communism with Chinese characteristics.
 
Last edited:
This is where I make the same comment every time the topic of a bigger Iron Curtain gets brought up: This will probably be politically disastrous for the Soviet Union (or at the very least, for Stalin).

Any of the candidates for further communist expansion in Europe (Italy, France, Spain a united Germany with more clout, etc) had pre-existing left-wing movements that largely rejected totalitarianism. France and Italy in particular had large factions of armed left-wing partisans running around, meaning an occupying Red Army wouldn't be in total control of the regions. In this hypothetical aftermath of World War II, Tito's break from the Soviet Union would be met with enthusiasm from Rome, Paris, Barcelona, or whatever other country was liberated by the Soviets outside of Eastern Europe. Whether a united German Democratic Republic would go a similar way depends on the ability of local paramilitaries to build grassroots political support before Stalin fully consolidated control.

Either way, I can only see the situation being a massive headache for Stalin, who liked to have complete control over his client states. The Red Army would be thinking long and hard before sending the tanks into Budapest in this timeline. I could also definitely see 1950's US diplomacy being dominated by attempts to split western socialism from the eastern bloc to strangle the Warsaw Pact in the crib.
 
Top