WI - Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both lose WW2 (Post-Barbarossa)

WI - Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both defeated in WW2 (Post-Barbarossa)

What-If both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia lost WW2 and underwent post-war De-Nazification and De-Sovietisation respectively, the POD beginning after Operation Barbarossa (without use of Nuclear Weapons)?

While it would be a relatively more bloody affair compared to OTL and likely be met with stiff resistance by Soviet-sympathizers within the US/UK, am interested in how events would turn out if the Allies while still fighting the Nazis, either never backed or never fully-aided the Soviets and pursued a policy of replacing both regimes.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what your criteria is for "both lose", but here's a TL where both countries are ripped to pieces and never put back together again.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=211950

My criteria (if doable) is that the Nazis are defeated similar to OTL, while the Soviets are severely weakened (though not defeated) from fighting the Nazis (via lack or half-hearted support from the Allies) to the point where the Soviet regime falls and is later replaced by either another authoritarian (albeit Western-leaning or neutral) regime or as a semi-stable democracy.
 
Last edited:
My criteria (if doable) is that the Nazis are defeated similar to OTL, while the Soviets are severely weakened (though not defeated) from fighting the Nazis (via lack or half-hearted support from the Allies) to the point where the Soviet regime falls and is later replaced by either another authoritarian (albeit Western-leaning or neutral) regime or as a semi-stable democracy.
These two contradict each other, especially if no Nuclear weapons are used: if the Soviets do not destroy the number of German troops they did in OTL, the Western Allies would have no chance in carrying out a landing in Europe and defeating the Nazis without Nuclear weapons.
 
These two contradict each other, especially if no Nuclear weapons are used: if the Soviets do not destroy the number of German troops they did in OTL, the Western Allies would have no chance in carrying out a landing in Europe and defeating the Nazis without Nuclear weapons.

Have read that the Western Allies had the opportunity to end the war a bit earlier by going through Italy up to at least as far as Austria / Germany and Prague (while Churchill favored the Balkans route) instead of pulling out of Italy and going via Normandy at the insistence of the Soviets since it served Stalin's interests in taking much of Eastern Europe with worrying about the Western Allies getting in his way.

Also in the OTL the Western Allies aided the Soviets via Lend-Lease at the expense of the Western Allies own war efforts with even technology from the then secret Manhattan Project being passed on to the Soviets (despite indications that the Soviets could have still pushed back the Nazis without Lend-Lease albeit at a higher cost) enabling them to be strengthened enough by the end of the war to began the Cold War.

What-If the ATL Post-Barbarossa scenario instead played-out as follows:

  • The ATL Western Allies give little to no aid or support to the Soviets (compared to OTL), while invading Nazi Germany via Italy (or the Balkans) getting at least as far as Czechoslovakia instead of Normandy preempting Soviet territorial expansion.
  • The ATL Soviets still managed to push back the Nazis in spite of receiving little to no Western support or aid though at a high enough price to cause the collapse of the Soviet regime.
  • The ATL Nazi regime meanwhile are defeated similar to OTL (sans the Soviets) or somehow overthrown in one of many coups attempts by the military who subsequently accepted conditional surrender to the Western Allies.
 
Have read that the Western Allies had the opportunity to end the war a bit earlier by going through Italy up to at least as far as Austria / Germany and Prague (while Churchill favored the Balkans route) instead of pulling out of Italy

Wow, whoever wrote that needs a smack upside the head. Despite Churchill's fantasy otherwise, the Germans could have defended Italy practically forever without any invasions in Normandy or the fighting on the Eastern Front. The terrains too easy to defend, there isn't enough frontage for the WAllies to maneuver, and the Germans just have too many forces available otherwise.

Also in the OTL the Western Allies aided the Soviets via Lend-Lease at the expense of the Western Allies own war efforts with even technology from the then secret Manhattan Project being passed on to the Soviets (despite indications that the Soviets could have still pushed back the Nazis without Lend-Lease albeit at a higher cost) enabling them to be strengthened enough by the end of the war to began the Cold War.

You are acting as if (A): the lend-lease aide to the USSR really materially affected the WAllies own build-up and (B) the gains of not sending L-L to the Soviets would outweight the costs. Neither is true. The first assumption ignores that lend-lease basically consisted of left-over war supplies the US had after outfitting their own armed forces. And the latter assumption falls down that a stalled Soviet advance in the east allows the Germans to send tons of more forces to the west, meaning a whole lot more Germans for the Americans and British to fight which in turn means both a vastly slower WAllied advance and heavier WAllied casualties.
 
Wow, whoever wrote that needs a smack upside the head. Despite Churchill's fantasy otherwise, the Germans could have defended Italy practically forever without any invasions in Normandy or the fighting on the Eastern Front. The terrains too easy to defend, there isn't enough frontage for the WAllies to maneuver, and the Germans just have too many forces available otherwise.

The people in question cite General Eisenhower who extolled the suitability of both the Italian Po Valley, as well as the Aegean Sea “Second Front” approaches during the late November, 1943 Cairo Conference.

"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the valley of the Po. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany.
The next best method of harrying the enemy was to undertake operations in the Aegean…From here the Balkans could be kept aflame, Ploesti [Rumanian; a significant source of oil for Nazi Germany ] would be threatened and the Dardanelles [a Turkish strait, connecting the Aegean Sea to the Sea of Marmara] might be opened."

(http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?id=FRUS.FRUS1943CairoTehran - page: 359-360)
 
What-If both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia lost WW2 and underwent post-war De-Nazification and De-Sovietisation respectively, the POD beginning after Operation Barbarossa (without use of Nuclear Weapons)?

While it would be a relatively more bloody affair compared to OTL and likely be met with stiff resistance by Soviet-sympathizers within the US/UK, am interested in how events would turn out if the Allies while still fighting the Nazis, either never backed or never fully-aided the Soviets and pursued a policy of replacing both regimes.

So, basically what you're looking for is the Nazi's and the USSR to bleed each other white, with the WAllies rolling in as the "last man standing" and defeating the battered Third Reich, then rebuilding both countries?

Honestly, outside of the difficulty of getting to a Reich/USSR mutual kill followed up by a WAllied invasion of the continent (though one could lead to the other), the cold hard truth is that much of the impetus for de-Nazification was to build up West Germany as a viable ally against the Soviets. If the Soviets have broken their arm punching out the Nazi's and are just as crippled, there won't be that geo-political pressure to rebuild either of them. You'd still get some kind of Marshall Plan, and some version of the Nuremberg trials, but when it comes down to it the WAllies probably wouldn't feel any great drive to build either country back up in the manner of OTL.
 
i'm not sure why the limitation on nuclear weapons.

a scenario where the nazis manage to take moscow and hold it, you can still have the communists weakened to a point of being replaced with a friendly pro-western government,

once the nazis are defeated with nuclear bombardment of nazi germany, especially if hitler dies and more sane people take over.


and the us, after being drawn into two major european wars in twenty years, could still be motivated to take steps to encourage stability.
 
Top