AH Challenge: WWII is America+CCCP+China vs Japan+Nazi Germany+France+Italy+UK

[schrammy]

here are my 2 cents on the topic.

the megaaxis will if they played it right in quite short order be able drive the USN out of the atlantic
and inflict heavy casualties in doing so, in the pasific the USN will do better but is still faceing off against japan and what ever naval assets the other powers have there so it won't be easy.
they will be quite probarly be able to close american traderouts except with south america, end even those might come in perril at some point, since at the start of OTL the USN asw capability's where quite poor and i don't see any reason why in ATL this would be diffrent at the beginning.

so basicaly even tough the commies alliance does have more warmaking potential they will have to be fighting a paralle war while the megaaxis can fight a coalition war.
so they basicaly won't be fighting the combined recourses of there enemy's all at once but one at a time more or less.

the ussr are most likely screwed, they will be fighting a 3 front war (altough the front againt the jappanse will not be that hard on them.
they will be fighting in the west a nazi germany without any losses from its campains in the west and without any need for either occupation troops it the west nor the ever increasing air deffence needs,with acces to most or all the recourses they where short on OTL.
along side with them will be most likely an british expedition force and some major RAF assets, several french army's and the italian army's Lost in OTL the opening stages of the war in africa
witch where some of there best i believe.
and of course part of the armies of all europea minors that will join the mega axis.

here is a list with all minors that i think are likely to join the mega axis in ATL at some point
in random order:
Spain
portugal
turkey
romania
poland
finland
hungary
greece
the netherlands

The red army and air force are massive yes but they will verry likely outnumbered and without any aid from there allies.
not to mention that they will quite likely have the same problems as in OTL being leadership shortage and incompetance.
badly organised, i am assuming that the reorganisation after the winter war like in OTL won't be complete in ATL.
verry few radio equipment leading to poor communications.
alote of obsolete equipment.
bad logistics due to bad infra structure and lack of transportation, altough this is less of a problem while on the defence will make offensive or even counter offensive more difficult.
poor doctrine, soviet military doctrine vastly improved OTL durring the war as they where learning the lessons at a heavy price,i don't see a reason why that would have changed in OTL.

also there is quite a good chance that the megaaxis will do better in winning the harts of the population in the USSR even if only some parts of it, i am manly thinking about the caucasus and the asian part of the USSR where it will likely be the british and common whealth troops and the turkish and french troops that are liberating them.
so there is a good chance that the soviets will have some proplems with the loyalty of troops and people in these parts of there country.

next lest touch on the point of thech, in OTL most tech altough not all was developt by the germans and the british,also these 2 nation where the in OTL leading nations in terms of nuke research and atleast untill the war starts i don't realy see a reason why that would change in ATL.
some people think that the usa will be able to catchup with the help off scientist that fled europe.
but let me ask you this, how did they flee europe to get to the USAR? in OTL they did that by going to england first and than by ship to the USA.
do you realy think that a britain that is seeing war with the ATL USAR as quite likely is going to allow these scientist to travel to the USAR?

so in conclusion the commie alliance is royaly screwed,sure they it will take them quite some time and yes canada will either be nutral or fall.
but in the long run the megaaxis will win and decisivly so if they have the will to do this.


one more small point for your toughts the commie alliance does at the start have the bigger warmakeing potential but howmuch of that can it hold on to?

 

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

This may seem silly, but why exactly are we completely ignoring Latin America here?

Because elected governement or not, south americans will have to decide whever to side with or against the US, south america is going to be the USA´s eastern europe...
At least it won´t be colonialistic and the new governement in the US would actually care for the well being of the locals, be carefull over which puppets they put in power, not just recrute any and all individual and political groups proclaiming themself communists.
Unless there is a massive draft into a long world war, south america would be, in total, better of than IOTL.

Also, holding Canada is impossible, and the British and Canadians are both likely to realize that. While the British will still see the Canadians useful as a way to grind the Americans down, I see the Canadians trying to quietly cut a deal with the UASR rather than have their cities turned into rubble solely to buy the British time.

Canada would most likely be flooded and taken over by anti-communist refugees from the USA, while many would surrender, others would resist or flee the country.

The Australians, well, they're likely to cause the British problems because they're going to be paranoid as hell about the Japanese.

In any case, the POD is not in 1937 or 1941. Anti-Chinese sentiment is older and stronger than anti-Japanese sentiment, which will only be exacerbated should China start siding with the Soviet-Union and a bolchevik USA.
At one time IOTL hovewer, Australia did fear an invasion from South America.

The UASR is likely to be flooding the European colonies with spare guns and gear, which is going to turn them into a hell of partisan warfare and make resource extraction more problematic for the MegaAxis..

Resistance movements against colonialism was more of a post-war thing, with groups becoming more politised and gaining larger support, consequence of the might colonial powers humiliated early in the war.
Then how are these guns going to be sent and to whom? Remember the German spies in Britain, they where all double agents or in jail within a year, in this timeline M-16 will probably work with the Gestapo...
Massive support to anti-colonial groups after The Revolution, open denounciation of colonialism? What will that have for political repercussions, exactly?!?

The MegaAxis itself is likely to be increasingly dominated by Germany as the war goes on, given that the Germans are going to have much of European Russia to exploit even as the French, British and Dutch colonies fall to the Commie Horde or are wracked with open revolt. And the Germans will squeeze the British and French to fall in line with them on matters of policy, especially relating to the racial issues the Nazis granted supreme importance. This is likely to be stupid and counter-productive, but "stupid" and "counter-productive" is frankly a good way to describe the entirety of Nazism as an ideology, and I see no reason why Nazism will be any less self-destructive ITTL.

French and British gov where pretty racist themself. You hear on how they where The Democracies but did the colonial populations even had the right to vote?
Churchill´s opinion on Slavs wasn´t that different from that of Hitler and only after a few years after WW2, the freedoom-loving beacons of democracy had plans of nuclear genocide against the Soviet-Union that dwarfed any nazi eastern politics, crush and occupy France should communists take power there.
He wouldn´t need economical pressures that would cripple the war coalition, victories and the greatest contribution to the war effort would be sufficent.
He wouldn´t particulary want to replicate the Reich in France and Britain, unless those powers faces catastrophic and repeated failures.
Politics of mass-exploitation would work better in the colonial possessions than it ever did in the Soviet-Union and Yugoslavia, without the influence of communism and a history of sovereignty and massive resistance to foreign rule.
Hitler is the one that pulled the looser of WW1 out of the gutter, while the victors still had a foot in it of the depression when the war started, he is the one who supressed the political divisions, the apathy and class violences there. On politics in Britain and German influence there, Hitler never considered Scottish and Irish peoples to be untermenschs or that British workers where unworthy of a better life and existed only for the sake of their owners.
In any case, French and British war efforts are going to be advantaged by far compared to IOTL.
It is socialist USA that would have unproductive measure if it randomly seize colonial possessions of neutral countries.
Not self-destructive, but overly optimistic and overconfident.Then again, how many today trust that the world will go the way they like it?
Hitler never planned for a global, long and difficult war. No mad plans to conquer the world, except in poorly written fictions and laughable propaganda of course.
He planned for a short, easy one eastward, toward ennemies he did not saw as able to wage modern warfare (pretty much the view of the US on the "failed states" ). While he would see yankees as but a shadow of their Briton ancestors, he will not underestimate them the way he underestimated the soviet-union, especially if they turn bolchevik and comes out of the depression in a few years.
It would in fact be an early version of a scenario Hitler thought of IOTL back in the book he wrote in 28´, where he suspected the US would become the long-therm ennemy of any great german power should a sufficently efficient but "jewish-influenced" system took power there.
The USA massively helping the Soviet-Union in techno-industrial matters would also make it, to Hitler´s view, far more dangerous. Well, not just Hitler, Poland might come along this time.

 

[Typo]

Canada would most likely be flooded and taken over by anti-communist refugees from the USA, while many would surrender, others would resist or flee the country.

ummm no, Canada is not a Banana Republic

 

[Eurofed]

Except that in OTL 1944-45 the USSR was scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower. An unpurged Red Army would have similar organizational and tactical ability right from the start.

I'd say that an unpurged Red Army would be halfway between crappy OTL 1940-41 and peak efficiency 1944 levels. While they would have many extra good officials, all the dead wood that was painfully purged out in 1941-42 would still be there, too, and all the lessons that were learned in early-mid Barbarossa would be unlearned.

There's also how Stalin will not be having a breakdown when the USSR gets attacked ITTL.

True. By the way, assuming that the Axis is the one firing the first shot ITTL. Both sides have an ideologically driven crusader mentality, so it's a coin's toss IMO.

As well, the Netherlands and Belgium, IIRC, are as big on neutrality as Switzerland (but without the geography to back it up). Spain wasn't part of the Axis IOTL, so I'm not sure it would be ITTL. If Franco even comes to power at all.

Netherlands have their colonies in the line of fire, that shall necessarily bring in the wat in no long time. True about Belgium, but I didn't mention them as a belligerant.

As it concerns Spain, if not Franco specifically, with all the Western European great powers on one side, it is all but certain that they shall exercise their combined influence to steer 1930s Spanish political instability towards a takeover by a friendly right-wing regime, by whatever means necessary, and they shall be successful rather quickly. If not Franco, certainly someone quite like him. Alt-Franco ITTL shall not be torn between expectations of victory by Britain or by Germany, all his great powers neighbors are on one side while the Red powers are far away. Moreover, even if the *SCW occurs ITTL, it shall be over much more quickly and be rather less destructive, with France and Britain pouring as much support to the Nationalists as Germany and Italy, even if Americans and Russians send support to the Republicans. This shall leave Spain in better shape to fight a WWII (SCW damage was another thing that held back Franco IOTL).

I agree with Scrammy's point that I expect all the following minors to join the Axis for various reasons at some point: Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Finland, Hungary, Greece (maybe), Netherlands.

I also agree with most of the points he makes, esp. the fact that the Axis shall fight a coalition war from the start, while the Reds shall fight a parallel war from most of the conflict, and this gives the Axis an advantage. Unlike him, I don't go all the way to expect an Axis victory, rather a draw between America and the Euros. America is far too strong to fear an invasion by the Euros, and Canada, Australia, and Japan are screwed. OTOH, make it long and painful as you want, Soviet Russia is screwed too, and the Euros shall have little difficulty defending North Africa and the Middle East from American attacks.

India is too far off the beaten path, the logistics to meaningfully attack it just don't exist, not with everything else that's going on. Most likely it breaks away after the war unless the UASR makes enough ships to drown the RN by weight of numbers several times over.

The breakout of India after the war is also the most likely scenario for South Asia (a coin's toss whether the partition occurs or not, but most likely yes). I don't think the USN supremacy is going to be that overwhelming. A relative one, yes, but the combined shipbuilding potential of the Axis naval powers (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands) can come within a close distance. This Axis shall be mindful that they need to maintain a naval balance with America at the same time they pool their land resources to steamroll Russia. By the way, I also predict a Sino-American split sometime after the war, mirroring the Sino-Soviet split.

As to strategic focus, ITTL the UASR lost Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philippines bribing Britain into not attacking them right after their revolution. I'm still working out the strategic butterflies for that.

The strategic butterflies are going to be netted, since America shall be planning to reconquer those lands (and conquer Canada) as soon as the first shot is fired. Their Pacific-first strategic focus is not going to change. FDR's "Europe First" has no reason to exist ITTL, also because I'm getting the impression that your "nice" American Reds and the nasty Soviet Bolsheviks shall not be close political friends. Much more allies of convenience than anything else. If anything, Americans are going to be more cozy with the left-leaning factions of the KMT and the moderate factions of the CCP.

Edit: Siberian Rump USSR is one of the end scenarios I'm considering.

Good.

 

[schrammy]

I'd say that an unpurged Red Army would be halfway between crappy OTL 1940-41 and peak efficiency 1944 levels. While they would have many extra good officials, all the dead wood that was painfully purged out in 1941-42 would still be there, too, and all the lessons that were learned in early-mid Barbarossa would be unlearned.

i doudt it is possible to have stalin an avoid a purge of the red army, he was to paranoid a man to not due it, its possible to have it in an reduced version but totaly avaoiding it seems to me quite asb with stalin in charge.

I don't think the USN supremacy is going to be that overwhelming.

i keep wondering to how people are getting the idea that the USN will be haveing supremacy?

in the senario supposed the USA turns USAR because the new deal fails somehow and the great depression continues or gets even worse, such an USAR will should be counting it self glad if they can build up the USN to OTL levels before the war, espesialy when they also need to increase the army and quite possible have britain and france and germany default on there loans or atleast find all sort of ways to delay payment you know whit them being hostile and or expecting the USAR to turn hostile.

and last time i checked the combined fleets of britain,france,germany,italy,japan outnumberd the USN at the start of OTL WW2 by quite a large margine and given the senario i see no reason as of yet why that would be diffrent in ATL.

so even if the USN can outbuild them once it switches to full war economy it will at the begining have to fight for its survival, atleast in the atlantic that is if they are not forced out of the atlantic all together.
ofcourse in the pasific things will be somewhat diffrent, altough with the far eastern squardons of the UK and other countries joining japan the USN will have a bit tougher fight on its hand compared to OTL

 

[Aranfan]

Shrammy, The New Deal doesn't fail, it never happens. Communists get elected instead of FDR, MacArthur convinces Hoover to declare martial law and sets up a junta, and it all blows up into revolution when the Bonus Army Incident happens on schedule.

Also, actual socialist economic policy gets the UASR out of the the Depression by '37.


And Stalin is paranoid yes, but it will be focusing on the Fascists rather than the Army, who will be protecting him from the fascists.

 

[Aranfan]

I'd say that an unpurged Red Army would be halfway between crappy OTL 1940-41 and peak efficiency 1944 levels. While they would have many extra good officials, all the dead wood that was painfully purged out in 1941-42 would still be there, too, and all the lessons that were learned in early-mid Barbarossa would be unlearned.

I'd put it closer to '44 levels. If only because it never gets so hideously weakened in the first place. Also, America will be investing in the Red Army as well.

True. By the way, assuming that the Axis is the one firing the first shot ITTL. Both sides have an ideologically driven crusader mentality, so it's a coin's toss IMO.

I've decided that Stalin takes a defensive posture. The coin toss came up with Hitler attacking.

Netherlands have their colonies in the line of fire, that shall necessarily bring in the wat in no long time. True about Belgium, but I didn't mention them as a belligerant.

Really? I'd think that Indonesia would be waiting until after the war?

As it concerns Spain, if not Franco specifically, with all the Western European great powers on one side, it is all but certain that they shall exercise their combined influence to steer 1930s Spanish political instability towards a takeover by a friendly right-wing regime, by whatever means necessary, and they shall be successful rather quickly. If not Franco, certainly someone quite like him. Alt-Franco ITTL shall not be torn between expectations of victory by Britain or by Germany, all his great powers neighbors are on one side while the Red powers are far away. Moreover, even if the *SCW occurs ITTL, it shall be over much more quickly and be rather less destructive, with France and Britain pouring as much support to the Nationalists as Germany and Italy, even if Americans and Russians send support to the Republicans. This shall leave Spain in better shape to fight a WWII (SCW damage was another thing that held back Franco IOTL).

Actually, American companies gave quite a lot of support to the Nationalists in OTL. I do expect it to be shorter, but by a year or so, and only a year less destructive.

I agree with Scrammy's point that I expect all the following minors to join the Axis for various reasons at some point: Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Romania, Poland, Finland, Hungary, Greece (maybe), Netherlands.

Not being too up on the state of the rest of Europe at the time, I would like to hear these reasons.

I also agree with most of the points he makes, esp. the fact that the Axis shall fight a coalition war from the start, while the Reds shall fight a parallel war from most of the conflict, and this gives the Axis an advantage. Unlike him, I don't go all the way to expect an Axis victory, rather a draw between America and the Euros. America is far too strong to fear an invasion by the Euros, and Canada, Australia, and Japan are screwed. OTOH, make it long and painful as you want, Soviet Russia is screwed too, and the Euros shall have little difficulty defending North Africa and the Middle East from American attacks.

I am not so sure, as I've said before.

The breakout of India after the war is also the most likely scenario for South Asia (a coin's toss whether the partition occurs or not, but most likely yes). I don't think the USN supremacy is going to be that overwhelming. A relative one, yes, but the combined shipbuilding potential of the Axis naval powers (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands) can come within a close distance. This Axis shall be mindful that they need to maintain a naval balance with America at the same time they pool their land resources to steamroll Russia. By the way, I also predict a Sino-American split sometime after the war, mirroring the Sino-Soviet split.

I think it would be more like France pulling it's military out of NATO. America would absolutely dominate any ideological bloc it's part of, simply from sheer economic strength.

The strategic butterflies are going to be netted, since America shall be planning to reconquer those lands (and conquer Canada) as soon as the first shot is fired. Their Pacific-first strategic focus is not going to change. FDR's "Europe First" has no reason to exist ITTL, also because I'm getting the impression that your "nice" American Reds and the nasty Soviet Bolsheviks shall not be close political friends. Much more allies of convenience than anything else. If anything, Americans are going to be more cozy with the left-leaning factions of the KMT and the moderate factions of the CCP.

If the Soviet Union comes out of the war with it's territorial integrity intact, there will be split soon after, yes.

Thinking about it, I agree with you about the Pacific.

Good.

It's not the only one though.

 

[schrammy]

Shrammy, The New Deal doesn't fail, it never happens. Communists get elected instead of FDR, MacArthur convinces Hoover to declare martial law and sets up a junta, and it all blows up into revolution when the Bonus Army Incident happens on schedule.

oke sorry my mistake i must have misread/misunderstood you on that one.
tough some of my points still stand to some degree here none the less,
the megaaxis seeing the USA going commie in there eyes might still default on there loans and or try to delay payment.

that combined with the extra buidup of the army and the depressions will still make it rather hard for the USAR to finance a huge naval buildup.
espesialy if it doesn't persieve the need to challange pretty much every other naval power in the world at once.

and how about the the washington naval treaty? does the USAR just say screw every one we start building a huge fleet anyways?
or is the treaty butterflyed away?

And Stalin is paranoid yes, but it will be focusing on the Fascists rather than the Army, who will be protecting him from the fascists.

Sorry i have a realy hard time buying this, as i said earlyer i can see an reduced purge even an much reduced one but i still think that stalin woule purge the army alittle to remove the people he felt most threathening to his position of power, note if it is small enough it could actualy be some what bennifitial for the red army,it just depends on howm he purges and when.

 

[Hawkeye]

Canada would most likely be flooded and taken over by anti-communist refugees from the USA, while many would surrender, others would resist or flee the country.

Sure there will be some refugees but wasn't mentioned somewhere in this thread that the UASR allowed the Republican Party to survive, so only the most die hard anticommunists would go on a self imposed exile to Canada. Ether way I don't see Canadians losing control over their own country.

Although if Canada goes Fascist like Britain then I guess "maybe" (emphasis on "maybe") Canada would join the Axis or Socialist America would just invade anyway. But I doubt that a Democratic Canada would even support a Fascist Britain in a war against a reasonably Democratic Socialist America in a war which would probably end up being annex by America even if the Axis wins.

I think Canada would at least try to be neutral in this scenario. And if it does fight and lose against the Communists then I think that instead of outright annexing it, America would just take back the territory it lost and turn the rest of Canada into a satellite state.

 

[schrammy]

Not being too up on the state of the rest of Europe at the time, I would like to hear these reasons.
It's not the only one though.

out of the top of my head:
lets start with spain.
they just recently fought a civil war against commies/republicans
they have have claims on USAR controlled territory naimly cuba and the philippines, tough i am not so sure they actualy would want them back.
the megaaxis just helped them win there civil war and is probarly helping them
rebuild to some degree after that.
and don't under estimate the propaganda value that this united crusade against cummunisem is going to have on them and every other minor nation.

the netherlands.
have colonies that they need to defend against the commie in ATL.
the 2 nations they had the best relations with some of theres like royal famaly ties etc going back huderds of years are britain and germany.
germany and britain make up that vast majority of its import and export.
and like i said everyone likes a good crusade.

poland.
oke i admit this is a geuse on my part,but there location makes it sure that they will have to pick one side or the other and i suspect that they would rather join the megaaxis than the commies.
also they fought an war against the ussr in the aftermath of ww1 or is that butterflyed away?
the crusade theing doesn't nessesary apply to them because they can be effectively be bombarded by propaganda from both sides.

romania.
the ussr wants some of there territory and they want some from the ussr.

portugal.
was an age old ally of britain.
has colonies in jepordy here that need defending.
the crusade thing again as they will be hearing propaganda from one side only.

turkey.
Russia was the ottoman empires hereditary enemy, and altough both empires are gone i doudt the turkes did change there views about russia just because it turned communist,huderdets of years of hate can't be that easyly undone.
they wanted some territory from the ussr where the majority of the people where somehow also turkish or related to them anyway.
and last but not least the megaaxis can offer them some of there old territory
back in exchange for joining....syria perhaps?

finland.
well they would do so mainly because they would probarly view it as needed for there nations survival.

greece.
there 2 best friends so to speak amongst nations where both britain and germany (altough not nazi german but no one knows that yet at this point)
they depend on trade for alote of stuff and all sea lanes they could possibly take can be rather easyly closed by the megaxis.
and again the crusade against communisem thingy.

hungary.
i don't know actualy but i assumed that the same reasons that led them to join the axis in OTL will do that here aswell.

 

[Aranfan]

stuff

You have quite clearly demonstrated that you have not read this thread, or the TL I am using as a base.

For your edification, I am using this TL:

Reds: A Revolutionary Timeline
A Red Dawn: American Revolution and Rebirth

As a base for the scenario.

 

[schrammy]

You have quite clearly demonstrated that you have not read this thread, or the TL I am using as a base.

For your edification, I am using this TL:

Reds: A Revolutionary Timeline
A Red Dawn: American Revolution and Rebirth

As a base for the scenario.

after reading the entire thread again i noticed that you indeed at one point said that you where useing said TL as a base for your TL...what can i say..i am sorry i missed that one.

 

[Eurofed]

I'd put it closer to '44 levels. If only because it never gets so hideously weakened in the first place. Also, America will be investing in the Red Army as well.

The late '42 - early '43, Stalingrad-Uran level, then. Anything more I'd call unreasonable. The pre-purges mid-'36 Red Army was good, not awesome.

I've decided that Stalin takes a defensive posture. The coin toss came up with Hitler attacking.

Fair enough. Only ITTL Barbarossa would be less about Lebensraum, and more of an anti-Communist crusade and a pre-emptive attack to stem the Red Tide.

Really? I'd think that Indonesia would be waiting until after the war?

Why ? Once the UASR goes to war with the Euro-Japan Axis, much of its war rallying cry is going to be anticolonialism, so little reason that the DEI would be left alone.

Actually, American companies gave quite a lot of support to the Nationalists in OTL. I do expect it to be shorter, but by a year or so, and only a year less destructive.

Fair enough, but this implies that the Russians and Americans are sending a lot of help to the Republicans, too. This increases international tensions a lot, since the Axis powers would be sent into a state of high alert by the Reds acrtively supporting *revolution* in Europe. The SCW effectively becomes the proxy prologue of *WWII.

Not being too up on the state of the rest of Europe at the time, I would like to hear these reasons.

OK:

Spain: the Axis powers helped the Nationalists win, would see an anti-Communist crusade as the continuation of the good fight at home, a less destructive SCW leaves it more able to fight a war abroad, has little reason to stay neutral with all great power neighbors on the same side (which can subsidize its reconstruction). It is effectively an Axis client.

Portugal: old British client and right-wing authoritarian regime. Has ideological and alliance reasons to join the Axis.

Netherlands: the urge to defend its colonies from the American anticolonial crusade.

Hungary: same reasons as OTL.

Poland, Romania, Turkey: with all the Euro great powers on the same side, having right-wing regimes and fearing Soviet appetites, they accept their inevitable destiny as Axis clients.

Greece: as Portugal.

Finland: when WWII erupts, Soviet paranoia about Leningrad expands the conflict.

I am not so sure, as I've said before.

If not the Siberian rump, then a Brest-Litovsk peace. Anything more, I'd call unreasonable, against a united Europe.

I think it would be more like France pulling it's military out of NATO. America would absolutely dominate any ideological bloc it's part of, simply from sheer economic strength.

Only until China fully industrializes to modern levels. A developed China is too big to be part of any bloc but its own, unless it gets divided.

 

[Aranfan]

The late '42 - early '43, Stalingrad-Uran level, then. Anything more I'd call unreasonable. The pre-purges mid-'36 Red Army was good, not awesome.

Sure, no army is awesome at the start of a war. It just won't be the mess it was OTL.

Fair enough. Only ITTL Barbarossa would be less about Lebensraum, and more of an anti-Communist crusade and a pre-emptive attack to stem the Red Tide.

Yep.

Why ? Once the UASR goes to war with the Euro-Japan Axis, much of its war rallying cry is going to be anticolonialism, so little reason that the DEI would be left alone.

Well, there are two things, first is that anti-fascism is more likely to be the rallying cry, second is that they probably won't have the resources to spare.

Fair enough, but this implies that the Russians and Americans are sending a lot of help to the Republicans, too. This increases international tensions a lot, since the Axis powers would be sent into a state of high alert by the Reds acrtively supporting *revolution* in Europe. The SCW effectively becomes the proxy prologue of *WWII.

Like OTL then.

Spain: the Axis powers helped the Nationalists win, would see an anti-Communist crusade as the continuation of the good fight at home, a less destructive SCW leaves it more able to fight a war abroad, has little reason to stay neutral with all great power neighbors on the same side (which can subsidize its reconstruction). It is effectively an Axis client.

You've convinced me on this.

Portugal: old British client and right-wing authoritarian regime. Has ideological and alliance reasons to join the Axis.

Hmm, true.

Netherlands: the urge to defend its colonies from the American anticolonial crusade.

As I mention above, the Red warcry is more likely to be "Defend the Revolution" than anti-colonialism. That will start after the war.

Hungary: same reasons as OTL.

*nods*

Poland, Romania, Turkey: with all the Euro great powers on the same side, having right-wing regimes and fearing Soviet appetites, they accept their inevitable destiny as Axis clients.

Romania sure, but Poland didn't exactly have sensible leaders at the time, and Turkey might stay neutral if Greece goes Fascist.

Greece: as Portugal.

'kay.

Finland: when WWII erupts, Soviet paranoia about Leningrad expands the conflict.

I'm not so sure Stalin will be willing to expand the conflict like that when he has the rest of Europe on his plate. Remember that the Winter War happened when Germany and Russia were allies, in the ATL situation he might try to secure Finland as neutral instead.

If not the Siberian rump, then a Brest-Litovsk peace. Anything more, I'd call unreasonable, against a united Europe.

I'd say it would depend on Canada and the Lend-Lease equivalent. If Canada is hostile then you're right on the money. If Canada breaks with the Empire and allows *Lend-Lease through Alaska then the USSR might be able to hold out long enough for the Americans to smash Japan and provide reinforcements. That would greatly improve Russian Morale and allow the Communist Bloc to fight a coalition war.

Only until China fully industrializes to modern levels. A developed China is too big to be part of any bloc but its own, unless it gets divided.

Indeed, but that's fairly far off. It took until 1960 for China to effectively split from the USSR, it will take longer than that for China to be able to chart it's own course separate from what America wants.

 

[Eurofed]

second is that they probably won't have the resources to spare.

They would be attacking Anglo-French holdouts in SE Asia anyway, DEI are just around the corner, so to speak.

Like OTL then.

Except that the Anglo-French would be actively supporting the Nationalists, and the Americans the Republicans, which would make TTL SCW even more of a merry international conflict, with expeditionary corps of all stripes.

Romania sure, but Poland didn't exactly have sensible leaders at the time, and Turkey might stay neutral if Greece goes Fascist.

Deeply disdainful as I am of interwar Poland's terminally megalomanic nationalism, trying to remain neutral and hostile to both sides in the coming clash of titans between Axis Europe and Soviet Russia seems a lot of a Darwin Award even for them. If they don't pick a side, they shall be steamrolled into being an occupied battlefield when the shooting starts anyway.

As for Turkey, true about Greece. OTOH, they would have the opportunity to pick on their other hereditary enemy, Russia, with very powerful friends.

I'm not so sure Stalin will be willing to expand the conflict like that when he has the rest of Europe on his plate. Remember that the Winter War happened when Germany and Russia were allies, in the ATL situation he might try to secure Finland as neutral instead.

Fair enough.

I'd say it would depend on Canada and the Lend-Lease equivalent. If Canada is hostile then you're right on the money. If Canada breaks with the Empire and allows *Lend-Lease through Alaska then the USSR might be able to hold out long enough for the Americans to smash Japan and provide reinforcements. That would greatly improve Russian Morale and allow the Communist Bloc to fight a coalition war.

If Canada goes Red, too, or at least an ally of UASR, sure. Even a neutral Canada, however, would stop such a *Lend-Lease, or much better to balance to equation for the Soviets, an American expeditionary corps in Russia. Even in such a favorable scenario for the Red team, however, I really cannot see any better outcome for the USSR than holding on its 1939 borders. A united Europe fighting a coalition war is too strong even for the USSR-UASR team to successfully invade.

 

[Aranfan]

They would be attacking Anglo-French holdouts in SE Asia anyway, DEI are just around the corner, so to speak.

But it's also out of the way. America's main aim is Japan, maybe the Philippines and British stuff there. Indonesia overshoots that.

Except that the Anglo-French would be actively supporting the Nationalists, and the Americans the Republicans, which would make TTL SCW even more of a merry international conflict, with expeditionary corps of all stripes.

Yep.

Deeply disdainful as I am of interwar Poland's terminally megalomanic nationalism, trying to remain neutral and hostile to both sides in the coming clash of titans between Axis Europe and Soviet Russia seems a lot of a Darwin Award even for them. If they don't pick a side, they shall be steamrolled into being an occupied battlefield when the shooting starts anyway.

I'll probably flip a coin then.

As for Turkey, true about Greece. OTOH, they would have the opportunity to pick on their other hereditary enemy, Russia, with very powerful friends.

True, I'll have to think on it further.

If Canada goes Red, too, or at least an ally of UASR, sure. Even a neutral Canada, however, would stop such a *Lend-Lease, or much better to balance to equation for the Soviets, an American expeditionary corps in Russia. Even in such a favorable scenario for the Red team, however, I really cannot see any better outcome for the USSR than holding on its 1939 borders. A united Europe fighting a coalition war is too strong even for the USSR-UASR team to successfully invade.

But why would a Neutral Canada stop allowing trade between the UASR and USSR through Alaska just because Britain started shooting?

 

[Eurofed]

But it's also out of the way. America's main aim is Japan, maybe the Philippines and British stuff there. Indonesia overshoots that.

Fair enough.

I'll probably flip a coin then.

Being mindful that a Polish-Soviet alliance is even more improbable than neutrality.

But why would a Neutral Canada stop allowing trade between the UASR and USSR through Alaska just because Britain started shooting?

Because they cling to their neutrality. Allowing normal trade of commodities through their borders just like in peacetime is OK. Allowing transit of weapons or troops is rather different, and much closer to picking a side. As others stated, American naval supremacy in the Atlantic is not so plausible against the Axis coalition fleets so Canada would have good reasons to try and be a true neutral. I would let American commodities have free transit through Canada, but not weapons or military equipment. If America wants to have more of an unrestricted Lend-Lease transit, let them pull a Schliffen and conquer Canada.

 

[Aranfan]

Because they cling to their neutrality. Allowing normal trade of commodities through their borders just like in peacetime is OK. Allowing transit of weapons or troops is rather different, and much closer to picking a side. As others stated, American naval supremacy in the Atlantic is not so plausible against the Axis coalition fleets so Canada would have good reasons to try and be a true neutral. I would let American commodities have free transit through Canada, but not weapons or military equipment. If America wants to have more of an unrestricted Lend-Lease transit, let them pull a Schliffen and conquer Canada.

Wouldn't that kind of stuff be allowed during peace time though?

Edit: Also, wouldn't the Axis Atlantic fleet be Royal Navy + French Navy?

Edit2: +German Subs?

 

[Eurofed]

Wouldn't that kind of stuff be allowed during peace time though?

In peacetime, yes. In wartime, sending weapons to a belligerant is rather close to picking its side (e.g. see Arab oil embargo on states shipping weapons to Israel during the Yom Kippur war).

 

[Eurofed]

Wouldn't that kind of stuff be allowed during peace time though?

Edit: Also, wouldn't the Axis Atlantic fleet be Royal Navy + French Navy?

Edit2: +German Subs?

What else the KM and RM would have to do, but helping their allies in the Atlantic ?