Soviet Union starts WWII

[KraytKing]

I was working on this scenario for Axis & Allies involving the Soviet Union as the Axis power and Germany joining the Allies, and I began to think about how this could be historically feasible. The Axis become Italy, Soviet Union, Japan, and Allies get Germany.

In my version, Germany comes out of World War One generally satisfied with the way of the world but Russia has a chip on its collective shoulder. Following the Revolution, they face a coup as Trotsky takes control in the early 1930's and begins a military build-up in preparation for war. Italy and Japan are befriended and eventually made allies. In the late 1930's they go for the Baltic States, Poland, and Finland, triggering a second global conflict when France, Germany, and Britain protest. The teams end up similar as the war progresses, with Japan still attacking the Americans and giving them an excuse to declare war on the Soviets. The timeline is also similar, at least early on. Poland is invaded in 1939. United States joins in late '41.


So,
a) What do you think? Is this at least plausible?
b) What other scenarios could lead to this outcome? What are your thoughts?
c) Who would win the new World War? What would the future look like for the world?

[Marko Dash]

red alert 1

[Elheru Aran]

Italy with the Union? And Japan? Unlikely. But if you're changing the outcome of WWI that drastically, then maybe. Still unlikely though as the Soviets forming military alliances with fascist nations doesn't really make sense.

Strategically Italy is in a poor situation for an European front though, not enough allies in close proximity. Perhaps if the Soviets cut through the Caucasus and the Balkans. Japan is better off without the Soviet threat to their western borders though, and may be able to take advantage of their resources to expand through China rather than the Pacific.

In this scenario does Germany still have the Nazi party in control? Because that's important a.) politically it might not play well for the Allies to align themselves with Hitler, and b.) Germany is unlikely to be as heavily militarized as it was IRL without the Nazis.

[K. A. Pital]

This timeline was explored in "New World", albeit it was much better thought-through.

The core divergence started with the German revolution succeeding and Russia with Germany dominating the European continent with communist policies in the 40s, which leads to a breakout of naval conflict between Britain and France on one hand and the Soviet bloc which rose early on the other hand.

It also explains how Germany and the USSR could join forces instead of just chalking it up to randomness of alliances. They rarely are.

[KraytKing]

Italy with the Union? And Japan? Unlikely. But if you're changing the outcome of WWI that drastically, then maybe. Still unlikely though as the Soviets forming military alliances with fascist nations doesn't really make sense.

Yeah. It sort of collapses there. Japan may be something of a lost cause, but perhaps Italy had a communist takeover, not fascist.

In this scenario does Germany still have the Nazi party in control? Because that's important a.) politically it might not play well for the Allies to align themselves with Hitler, and b.) Germany is unlikely to be as heavily militarized as it was IRL without the Nazis.

The Nazis have not taken over. With Germany coming out of the war (somewhat) victorious, Hitler has no support for his ideas. Germany has been largely demilitarized, having a standing army only large enough for defense. All three react to Soviet aggression with appeasement, then, when Poland falls, reluctant military action.

[Elheru Aran]

In this scenario does Germany still have the Nazi party in control? Because that's important a.) politically it might not play well for the Allies to align themselves with Hitler, and b.) Germany is unlikely to be as heavily militarized as it was IRL without the Nazis.

The Nazis have not taken over. With Germany coming out of the war (somewhat) victorious, Hitler has no support for his ideas. Germany has been largely demilitarized, having a standing army only large enough for defense. All three react to Soviet aggression with appeasement, then, when Poland falls, reluctant military action.

Yeah, that's going to be a problem. A big reason Germany did as well as it did in the early years of the second war, lack of preparation and unwillingness to fight on the Allied side aside, was that it had been arming for the better part of a decade after the Nazis took power. A 'standing army only large enough for defense' isn't going to do very much at all against the Soviets. 5 million plus soldiers were raised by the Nazis across the course of the war for a reason; they knew perfectly well that there were only two forces large enough to steamroll them, and that was the US and the Soviets.

Historically there was a lot of paranoia versus the Soviets across Europe, no thanks to how they were actively supporting Communist movements in Western countries. There's a reason that was one of Hitler's platforms in bringing the Nazis to power; there was a real Communist subversive movement, almost certainly much smaller than they painted it to be, but it existed. In your alt-hist, if you want Germany to be at a similar level to historic forces, it would not be too hard to rationalize a similar but perhaps less extreme right-wing party taking power and using the Soviet threat to justify defence spending.

[KraytKing]

In your alt-hist, if you want Germany to be at a similar level to historic forces, it would not be too hard to rationalize a similar but perhaps less extreme right-wing party taking power and using the Soviet threat to justify defence spending.

I do not. The only military forces in any country west of Poland are those required to maintain borders. Poland has had some build-up, but is at no more than their actual military size in WWII.

Edit: K.A. Pital, where is "New World" available?

[Elheru Aran]

In that case, there's really nothing in Europe that can resist the Soviet Union, unless you're going with some shenanigans like 'every man is a trained soldier but they are only called up in emergencies and they maintain large stocks of military supplies'. The UK has the advantage of physical separation from the mainland, but that's not going to do it much good in the long term without US assistance.

Unless you're running with something like the Soviets aren't heavily armed either... like WWI was nipped in the bud or something and everybody came out of it fairly happy?

[KraytKing]

Not quite. The only thing Europe has going for it is strategic depth and outdated tactics. The Soviets aren't as good at blitzing as early Germany was, but they still use tanks and artillery similar to their late war tactics. And the Allies can likely maintain a presence on the continent for longer, as France will have time to be reinforced by Britain and get it's military going while Germany collapses. But no, no amped-up civilians or enormous arms stockpiles.

Soviets have a powerful military, akin to what they had in 1945, only with untapped reserves of manpower and intact infrastructure designed to handle their needs. The US will find an excuse to enter the war if Europe looks bad (Germany is gone, Paris has fallen) or if an invasion of Britain seems imminent if Pearl Harbor doesn't happen soon enough.

Fascists won Spain, but they'll join the Allies if things look really bad on the Continent. Obviously, with their infrastructure and military the way it is, not much of a contribution, but it's another few hundred miles of space to retreat through.

Japanese still have no sustainability, but the Soviets will help out in China and India. Also, Soviet oil, steel, and wheat imports.

Edit: Southern Europe (Romania, Greece, etc) is also going to be either invaded or inducted into the alliance, depending on real life leanings.

[Elheru Aran]

So, basically, you've got the Soviets rolling up most of eastern Europe and Germany, and if Italy is attacking France from the south, it wouldn't be that much longer before France fell as well. A 1945 Soviet army versus late-30s Europe would not be a pretty sight. Patton wasn't talking about pre-emptively attacking them immediately after the war for nothing, as realistically the US Army was the only force that would've stood a fighting chance against them in case they decided to move the Berlin Wall further west. It's always been this way and I'm not sure why you think it would be any different; if anything it'd be worse thanks to the late-30s-early-40s European armies being weaker due to treaty obligations.

[KraytKing]

I'm not trying to create a scenario where Western Europe can win; if anything, the opposite. I'm wondering if all of these advantages can offset a world united against them after Japan falls.

[Elheru Aran]

*scratches head* ...so I dunno, you want to start the Cold War a decade or two earlier, or what?

[Simon_Jester]

What would "the world united" even entail if Western Europe is folded into some equivalent of the Warsaw Pact?

That's basically...

1) The US, which cares a bit about anticommunism, but has every reason to stay isolationist, and is not immediately threatened.

2) The Japanese, who will respond by trying to vacuum up as many of the 'orphaned' colonial possessions in the Pacific as they can, because that's exactly how they exploited the war historically.

3) Various minor industrialized-ish nations like those in Latin America and the British Commonwealth nations, whose stances on these issues is going to be mixed.

4) Former colonial possessions, e.g. India and Africa, which are VERY likely to swing hard towards communism in this scenario.

With the historical war, basically everyone was firmly opposed to Nazi conquests. Here, the attitude of nations outside Western Europe will be influenced by attitudes towards the merits or lack thereof of communism, and by anticolonial sentiments when colonial metropoles get overrun by communists whose ideology promotes decolonization.

[KraytKing]

Is the fall of Western Europe a guaranteed outcome? Poland is being absorbed by the time war is declared, that still leaves five hundred miles until Paris and a thousand more until Gibraltar. Even with Italian support, it seems like a lot of land to cross before British, French, German, and Spanish units to get into positions and begin the process of build up.

Looking across the water, how about the US? I know they had one of the most powerful armies post-war, and the most powerful industry, but how long did it take to gear up? Is it feasible to have divisions in France or Spain by the time the Soviet advance arrives?

How much of an effect does Italy have? How seriously would it hurt the Soviets to lose them to the Allies? My understanding of history paints Italy as just about useless, aside from some pretty ships and guns in the first few months.

2) The Japanese, who will respond by trying to vacuum up as many of the 'orphaned' colonial possessions in the Pacific as they can, because that's exactly how they exploited the war historically.

I know it hurts my case, but just had to point out: the Japanese are allied with the Soviets, in return for assistance in China and keeping the US focused on Europe.

[Simon_Jester]

Is the fall of Western Europe a guaranteed outcome? Poland is being absorbed by the time war is declared, that still leaves five hundred miles until Paris and a thousand more until Gibraltar. Even with Italian support, it seems like a lot of land to cross before British, French, German, and Spanish units to get into positions and begin the process of build up.

If they didn't start a massive armament buildup years before the war began, yes they get squashed.

Distance alone is not much of an obstacle to an invading army, unless it's backed up by forces the enemy must overrun, or unless the population is uniformly and intensely resistant. A Soviet army invading Western Europe in the 1940s would have significant support from the "fifth column" of pro-communist citizens, which would tend to limit the effectiveness of guerilla resistance. Opposing it would require armies, and armies take time to organize and prepare.

Mobilization is critical here. Equipping a mass army with large amounts of weapons and equipment requires dedicated factories running at high capacity, for years. Having a mass air force on the scale needed in WWII requires dedicated factories, likewise, for years. If your military-industrial complex has spent the past 5-10 years toodling along on cruise control and providing only enough materiel to equip a peacetime army... Nothing you can do will help you if you're suddenly attacked by someone else whose military-industrial complex has been fully geared up for a long time.

Looking across the water, how about the US? I know they had one of the most powerful armies post-war, and the most powerful industry, but how long did it take to gear up? Is it feasible to have divisions in France or Spain by the time the Soviet advance arrives?

Historically it took roughly four years from the time the US began its WWII mobilization to the time the US was confident of fielding a major army in Normandy.

How much of an effect does Italy have? How seriously would it hurt the Soviets to lose them to the Allies? My understanding of history paints Italy as just about useless, aside from some pretty ships and guns in the first few months.

The biggest advantages of having the Italians on your side in WWII are:
1) Having a lot of warm bodies to secure territory you would otherwise have to secure yourself, and more importantly
2) NOT having to deploy very large forces to ensure the Italians stay irrelevant.

Sure, the Italian Navy didn't accomplish much in WWII, but that was because the British sent a large fraction of their available effective warships to keep an eye on them and trim their forces down. The only major land operations the British were involved in between mid-1940 and early 1944 were those aimed at the Italians, defending British colonial possessions from Italian forces, and then attacking them and knocking them out of the war.

Even a militarily weak power, by changing sides, forces a massive diversion of effort and resources on the part of its former allies. Because even a weakling can win impressive victories if the opposing team doesn't bother to show up in force.

2) The Japanese, who will respond by trying to vacuum up as many of the 'orphaned' colonial possessions in the Pacific as they can, because that's exactly how they exploited the war historically.

I know it hurts my case, but just had to point out: the Japanese are allied with the Soviets, in return for assistance in China and keeping the US focused on Europe.

In other words, exactly what I said. Point being, the Japanese aren't really interested in the issue of "world communism" as such, they're going to be interested in how it creates medium-term opportunities for them to build up a colonial empire in Asia.

[Stewart M]

Brain drain is another factor to consider.

Top minds fled fascist Europe to escape all sorts of unpleasantness. These minds became code-breakers and bomb builders for the allies.

The Soviets may not have been as anti-scholar and anti-Jew as the Nazis, and some scientists were socialists, but I still imagine the vast majority of Europe's researchers would eagerly escape to the UK or US in the face of an early Red Tide. And in this world, that exodus would include the gems of the German scientific establishment that otherwise served Hitler. Imagine, Einstein and von Braun on the same team in 1942.

[Simon_Jester]

I think you'd see a lot of that under Stalin, whose paranoia caused him to be a lot more damaging to his many many perceived enemies.

Under Trotsky or some other leading Soviet figure? Some, definitely. But I honestly think the level of pressure would be reduced compared to that exerted by the Nazis, to a great enough extent that you'd get a lot fewer people fleeing Europe. Especially since, with an active war on, escaping would be considerably harder. A lot of the great scientists and other scholars who fled the Nazis did so before September 1939, after all.

[KraytKing]

Is there really nothing in prewar France or Britain that could possibly hold up? The Maginot Line? The Rhine? I seem to remember a lot of the early failings being due to the insanely mobile German forces, not the lack of a trained army. Against an enemy using far more conventional tactics, I would think they would fare better. There were, by my research (a quick Google - correct me if I'm wrong) some one million men serving between the two countries. Spain brings the total up to about two million. The Germans would have a military somewhere between Britain and France, probably in the half million range. The Soviets, on the other hand, have about six million. Slightly higher than two-to-one isn't great odds when you have French fortifications and a thousand miles to cross.

Could the entry of Italy on the Allied side save Europe? In short, what would it take to hold the line long enough for it to become a slog, not a Cold War?

[LaCroix]

Nothing.

1945 we are talking 500 rifle divisions, 50 tank divisions. This is something that the allies just can't match without years of building stuff.

Even with similar development due to russian trhreat instead of Nazi rise, the BEF is ~13 divisions.
The French, with similar threat level, had like 100 divisions, 150 if they scrape the barrel, call back Oversea divisions, and empty all the stores in a hurry.
Germany, with full nazi buildup had like 170 divisions.

Even if they all join an throw everything into a common front, we're still not reaching numerical parity, by far.

And if we add technology, this becomes even more of a slaughterhouse. Germans are using mostly Pz1&2, a few hundred early III's with the 37Kwk. There may be a few early Panzer IV with 75cm AT guns around who could somewhat counter T34/76 (not the 85), but not in the numbers present. And the IS& Su-xx versions will kill them off, anyway, before they pose a real threat.
French/British tanks are about ass numerous and effective.

This is how it went when they first met the russian forces...

Half a dozen anti-tank guns fire shells at him [a T-34], which sound like a drumroll. But he drives staunchly through our line like an impregnable prehistoric monster... It is remarkable that lieutenant Steup's tank made hits on a T-34, once at about 20 meters and four times at 50 meters, with Panzergranate 40 (caliber 5 cm), without any noticeable effect.
— German battle report, Finkel

The KV-1 and KV-2, which we first met here, were really something! Our companies opened fire at about 800 yards, but [they] remained ineffective. We moved closer and closer to the enemy, who for his part continued to approach us unconcerned. Very soon we were facing each other at 50 to 100 yards. A fantastic exchange of fire took place without any visible German success. The Russian tanks continued to advance, and all armour-piercing shells simply bounced off them. Thus we were presently faced with the alarming situation of the Russian tanks driving through the ranks of 1st Panzer Regiment towards our own infantry and our hinterland. Our Panzer Regiment therefore about turned and rumbled back with the KV-1s and KV-2s roughly in line with them. In the course of that operation we succeeded in immobilizing some of them with special purpose shells at very close range - 30 to 60 yards. A counter attack was launched and the Russians were thrown back. A protective front established and defensive fighting continued.
— Paul Carrell, Hitler Moves East

1945 Era tanks are even better, and come in wars of hundreds and thousands, insteat do a few dozens. A t34/76 will eat pretty much anything they have alive at whatever range they chose to fire, and a T34/85 is even worse.

Same for air superiority fighters, bombers, artillery, man-portable RPGs, AT guns, Artillery, down to submachine guns. Everything the Russians have is an order of magnitude more efective than anything the Allies have, and they are outnumbering them by oders of magnitude.

Just comparing tank numbers...

Soviet production till 1945
T-34 35,119
T-34-85 29,430
KV and KV-85 4,581
IS 3,854
SU-76 12,671
SU-85 2,050
SU-100 1,675
SU-122 1,148
SU-152 4,779

German:
Pre-war 1939 1940
Panzer I 1,893 - -
Panzer II 1,223 15 99
Panzer 38(t) 78 153 367
Panzer III 98 157 1,054
Panzer IV 210 45 368
Total 3,503 370 1,888

You see, the T34/76 alone outnumber all the Germans have by a factor of 6+
The British have no tank force worth mentioning, and the French have about as much as the Germans.

Pretty much the only thing limiting the advance speed of the Russian front is their supply chain.
Pornhub would decline to upload a documentary of that war, due to their "no rape" rules.

[KraytKing]

Noted.

To clarify: when I said 1945 army, I meant in terms of organization and size, not technology. The T-34 has yet to be introduced. The army still uses older tanks. Not that this has any effect, apparently.

Now, how about the Maginot Line? It was designed to counter precisely this type of assault. How long would it delay the assault? Any significant amount of time?

[LaCroix]

The T34 was already around in 1940, and the production was about to ramp up brutally.

Maginot was deemed to hold off Germany, by funneling their advances into chokepoints you would engage them with your amassed armies.


You see how it is kind of holey? You see, it has holes that you could drive a tank brigade through. And even these lines are not the Chinese wall, but only depictions of a set of fixed defenses, bunkers, gun emplacements scattered everywhere. Actually, the thinner lines don't even have a lot of artillery.

Still enough to bloody a big infantry force. Does kind of work against a foe your size - not work too well against a foe three times as large. They can poke at a lot more places that you can defend.

But - these things do not work too well against a big tank force, or someone with a lot of artillery. Even the Germans poked a lot of holes through the line, wheeling artillery towards the emplacements without gun turrets and shelling them. Most of these lasted less than 48 hours. The better defended areas they just laid siege to, and marched past. Personell inside was pretty much no issue as long as you did not get into their gun range. Quite a bit of the French army was holed up in the Garrisons and could not participate, still sitting there twiddling their thumbs when Paris capitulated.

So it's mostly a minor roadblock until the Russians circle it through the Benelux countries, Italy&Russia circle it from southern France, or Russia simply decides to ROFLstomp it by massed artillery and bombing, followed by tank waves.

And yes, Russia would know about the layout pretty much as much as Germany did - this thing was a huge prestige project pretty much every nation knew about, so they would have time to plan how to overcome it.

[KraytKing]

Referring to the T-34: if production starts in 1940, they have an army with fifty tank divisions, and the war starts in late 1939, they will have T-34s in only the occasional battle for quite some time.

[LaCroix]

Referring to the T-34: if production starts in 1940, they have an army with fifty tank divisions, and the war starts in late 1939, they will have T-34s in only the occasional battle for quite some time.

That'S the problem with how you defined and then redefined the scenario - either they have an army like in 45' - then you have 500 infantry and 50 tank divisions, and about 100.000 various tanks.

OR they have army equipment like in 39', but then they also only have an army the size of 39'. You can't have a 50 tank division army if you don't have enough tanks....

[KraytKing]

They have the army size of 1945 with the tank designs of 1939. No T-34s, but an awful lot of older tanks.

[LaCroix]

I must correct myself, I accidentally quoted tank production as tanks fielded... the red army actually fielded 25000 tanks in 1945, not 100000.
But keep in mind that this was to defend against Germany, with the allies on their side. Knowing they would face France and Britain, as well, they could easily field that many if they ramp up production for an all-out invasion of Europe.

Using the 1939 numbers, they used 50% T26 and 25% BT, which are both about equal to Panzer III and IV, and vastly superior to Panzer I and II.
This translates to about 20000 tanks of about Panzer III parity....

And T34 and KV are finished with their prototype lines and are to go into serious production, but only a few hundred exist.

Germans have about 4000 in total, only ~200 of them are III , and about 300 IV type. 3000 are Pz I and II, which are little more than cannon fodder against a T26 or BT. Since they did not capture poland and Czech republic, there are no captured and rebuilt Panzer 35 or Panzer 38 , and no designs based on them.
The British have 1200 Tanks, 900 of them are Vickers (about a Pz I equivalent, or even less)
The French have about 4000 tanks, 1600 of them are FT-17 (WW1) - the Germans didn't even bother to use these in fights after capturing them. The 1600 Rt-35 are quite modern and about on par or better than a Pz III.
That which means we do have 9000 tanks, most of them light tanks or obsolete WW1 designs, and only ~2000 Pz III+ level ones, trying to stop 20.000 russian tanks that rival the Pz III, supported by 5000 light tanks.

That means that the WHOLE ALLIED TANK FORCE combined into a unified army would still face
1:1,5 about parity in light tanks (russian light designs are much better than what the allies field)
10:1 superiority in medium tanks
3:1 superiority in Infantry divisions

Germany alone (france hiding behind Maginot) would face
2:1 superiority in light
40:1 superiority in medium tanks
4:1 superiority in infantry divisions.

This is what you call a steamroll, even if Russia doesn't ramp up tank production prior to the invasion.