WI: Larger Communist Bloc?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kernals12

Banned
If the Americans don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the resulting invasion would probably allow the Soviets to take Korea and a large chunk of Japan.
 
All of Germany is very unlikely. The German partition was driven by diplomatic considerations with the WAllies.

East Germany could maybe be a little larger. (And of course, East Germany might have held all of Berlin if the Berlin blockade had gone better.)

All of Korea is easily possible.

France going Communist is close to ASB. And if France did go Communist, almost certainly it would split with the Soviets very soon.

Italy might be at some risk of going Communist (IMO it's hard with a post 1945 PoD). As was Greece (this is more likely, the Soviets supporting the Greek Communists or the Tito-Stalin split being avoided would have enabled the Communists to win).

Iran or at least Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan could have gone Communist.

If the Soviets had a leader Mao could respect instead of Khrushchev, the Sino-Soviet split could have been avoided.

There are ways to avoid the Tito-Stalin split.

In the 3rd world, there's some chance that Zaire/Belgian Congo could go Communist. Indonesia is also a possibility.

If the cold war lasts long enough, Apartheid South Africa could have fallen to a Communist regime.

Perhaps India might have become a closer ally to the Soviets? Especially in a longer cold war scenario.

Has anyone ever considered how possible a Malayan Communist victory over the British was? That could get rather interesting if it were possible.

If Stalin died early or was less paranoid in his old age, Israel might have ended up in the Communist block, though I can't see it going Communist. Rather it might have ended up as a democratic state allied to the Soviets. Likely this would come at the cost of much Soviet influence with the Arab states, so that would shrink the Communist bloc in net.

If the Americans don't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the resulting invasion would probably allow the Soviets to take Korea and a large chunk of Japan.

I doubt the Soviets would or could take more than Hokkaido. As I understand it, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to invade Manchuria and Korea and that was with the US begging for months for a Soviet invasion of the Japanese rear (though the US had started to change its mind by the time the Soviets actually invaded). By contrast, I don't think the US ever wanted Soviet help invading Japan itself.

In this world how long until WW3?

The thing is, even with maximum plausible Soviet wank and US-screw, the US would probably be twice as big as the Soviets economically and would still be allied with the Brits, French and West Germans (the 3rd, 4th and 5th most powerful militaries on the planet). The most the Soviets can do is pretend to be a peer to the US and nibble at the margins of US dominion. At the end of the day, the US would still have the world as their oyster. When it comes to the core US interests in the Persian Gulf, Western Europe and Japan, I just can't see how any competent Soviet leadership would think they have any chance and I can't see how a US administration could be stupid enough to let the Soviets think they had a chance, meaning both sides continue to work to avoid open war.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:

kernals12

Banned
All of Germany is very unlikely. The German partition was driven by diplomatic considerations with the WAllies.

East Germany could maybe be a little larger.

All of Korea is easily possible.

France going Communist is close to ASB. And if France did go Communist, almost certainly it would split with the Soviets very soon.

Italy might be at some risk of going Communist (IMO it's hard with a post 1945 PoD). As was Greece (this is more likely, the Soviets supporting the Greek Communists or the Tito-Stalin split being avoided would have enabled the Communists to win).

Iran or at least Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan could have gone Communist.

If the Soviets had a leader Mao could respect instead of Khrushchev, the Sino-Soviet split could have been avoided.

There are ways to avoid the Tito-Stalin split.

In the 3rd world, there's some chance that Zaire/Belgian Congo could go Communist. Indonesia is also a possibility.

If the cold war lasts long enough, Apartheid South Africa could have fallen to a Communist regime.

Perhaps India might have become a closer ally to the Soviets? Especially in a longer cold war scenario.

Has anyone ever considered how possible a Malayan Communist victory over the British was? That could get rather interesting if it were possible.

If Stalin died early or was less paranoid in his old age, Israel might have ended up in the Communist block, though I can't see it going Communist. Rather it might have ended up as a democratic state allied to the Soviets. Likely this would come at the cost of much Soviet influence with the Arab states, so that would shrink the Communist bloc in net.



I doubt the Soviets would or could take more than Hokkaido. As I understand it, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to invade Manchuria and Korea and that was with the US begging for months for a Soviet invasion of the Japanese rear (though the US had started to change its mind by the time the Soviets actually invaded). By contrast, I don't think the US ever wanted Soviet help invading Japan itself.

fasquardon
Projections were that the US invasion of Japan would result in an American death toll in the millions. I think Truman would eventually have no choice but to ask Moscow for help.
 
Projections were that the US invasion of Japan would result in an American death toll in the millions. I think Truman would eventually have no choice but to ask Moscow for help.

This isn't an area I've researched in any depth. But my understanding is that even with some of the apocalyptic predictions (which some planners didn't believe, since treating all of Japan as a scaled up Okinawa is problematic for several reasons), the general consensus was that it was a worthwhile price to pay.

fasquardon
 
There was never a realistic opening for the Soviet Union to invade Japan; Manchuria alone was past their abilities.

I think that the Soviets had the capability to take Hokkaido if the US is still tying down the bulk of Japanese air and sea assets. The bigger problem is: why the devil would Stalin want to invade Hokkaido? All it would do is kill Soviet citizens and annoy a very important and very powerful ally.

Even if we assume that Stalin was planning for the Cold War already (which I don't believe - I think the Cold War happened due to incompetence and misunderstanding, not due to Machiavellian planning), I don't see what military or political goal Soviet Hokkaido could play that would be worth the cost in even Stalin's eyes.

fasquardon
 
I think that the Soviets had the capability to take Hokkaido if the US is still tying down the bulk of Japanese air and sea assets. The bigger problem is: why the devil would Stalin want to invade Hokkaido? All it would do is kill Soviet citizens and annoy a very important and very powerful ally.

Even if we assume that Stalin was planning for the Cold War already (which I don't believe - I think the Cold War happened due to incompetence and misunderstanding, not due to Machiavellian planning), I don't see what military or political goal Soviet Hokkaido could play that would be worth the cost in even Stalin's eyes.

fasquardon

The Soviets didn't manage to secure the Kuriles until the end of September, and only managed to make landings in Northern Korea in October of 1945. Soviet capabilities were extremely limited for the latter operation, as their logistics were already grievously overstretched (Port Arthur had to be occupied using Japanese trains) and they lacked sufficient landing craft for major landings (Pyongyang was "taken" by Soviet officers flying in).

With regards to an ATL situation where Japan fights on, the Soviet advance in Manchuria had collapsed by the 15th while the Kwantung Army remained intact and fiercely fighting while still in control of the major cities; Stalin's foremost goal was always to be to secure Port Arthur and a strategic buffer for Vladivostok before worrying about the Japanese isles themselves. Hokkaido had also been reinforced by the Japanese, and continuing Japanese resistance in the Kuriles would probably drag on that affair for several additional months. By the time the Soviets could finish up their own going operations and have the logistics to support such an affair, the Japanese will have already surrendered to the Americans due to starvation.
 
The Soviets didn't manage to secure the Kuriles until the end of September, and only managed to make landings in Northern Korea in October of 1945. Soviet capabilities were extremely limited for the latter operation, as their logistics were already grievously overstretched (Port Arthur had to be occupied using Japanese trains) and they lacked sufficient landing craft for major landings (Pyongyang was "taken" by Soviet officers flying in).

With regards to an ATL situation where Japan fights on, the Soviet advance in Manchuria had collapsed by the 15th while the Kwantung Army remained intact and fiercely fighting while still in control of the major cities; Stalin's foremost goal was always to be to secure Port Arthur and a strategic buffer for Vladivostok before worrying about the Japanese isles themselves. Hokkaido had also been reinforced by the Japanese, and continuing Japanese resistance in the Kuriles would probably drag on that affair for several additional months. By the time the Soviets could finish up their own going operations and have the logistics to support such an affair, the Japanese will have already surrendered to the Americans due to starvation.

I'm not sure that we are disagreeing here?

The Soviets can both have the capability to launch an attack in a scenario with a longer war AND the Japanese can be strong enough to make a weak Soviet attack difficult and costly (and, IMO, not worthwhile for the Soviets to launch).

Keep in mind, at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, the US wasn't ready to invade either. In this scenario, there'd be some months where all parties would be preparing.

fasquardon
 
1942 Barbarossa, or the OTL Barbarossa going south in a much more catastrophic fashion, could see the Red Army on the Rhine by 1944 and a subsequent rump West Germany as the WAllies merely get a token occupation zone. Besides those specific points, I otherwise agree with FASquadron.
 
Last edited:
Xinjiang is possible, especially if China doesn't go Red; Shicai owed a great deal to the Soviets and was an opportunist with no love for Chiang.
 
It may sound simplistic, but suppose D-Day fails in 1944 and the Nazis keep France. Ultimately, the Red Army becomes the sole liberator of Europe and most of the countries become Soviet Satellites, a bloc much like Orwell's Eurasia. Britain remains allied with the US and Pacific coastal Asia (Japan, Korea) while China remains allied with the Russians.
 
It may sound simplistic, but suppose D-Day fails in 1944 and the Nazis keep France. Ultimately, the Red Army becomes the sole liberator of Europe and most of the countries become Soviet Satellites, a bloc much like Orwell's Eurasia. Britain remains allied with the US and Pacific coastal Asia (Japan, Korea) while China remains allied with the Russians.

That's the easy POD although I suspect landings in the south of France would have still occurred. Given the obstacles the Soviets faced OTL, they probably stop at the Rhine in this scenario while the allies take the long road up from the south which is aided by eventual reinforcements sent away from France to face the Soviets.
 

When Germany surrendered in may 1945, they still occupied southern Norway, Denmark, northern Yugoslavia, parts of Italy, Austria, Czechia, parts of the Netherlands and Kurland.
As we know in OTL, eastern Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechia and Kurland were liberated by the soviets after the Reich surrendered. Now they could have pushed on to liberate all of Norway and Denmark (they allready controlled Finmark and Mecklenburg), and also all of Austria and parts of northern Italy. Logisticly this is completely plausible, but they didn't in OTL, not to piss the WAllies off. What of they did?

Alternatively, what if D-Day fails, or the soviets do better early on? The soviets could easily take over all of Germany, all of eastern europe, Norway and Denmark. Maybe even the Benelux and (parts of) France and Italy.

In the cold war, you may have no sino-soviet split, the DPRK wins the korean war, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top