Soviet Free Reign

[Revolutionary Todyo]

Okay some what inspired by a theory I've seen Snake proponing lately for complete Soviet overrun of Europe during WW2. Basic premise seems to be Hitler putting off Barbarossa a little because he wants Britain throughly smashed up and sueing for peace before he tries to take on Russia. That's a very basic summary of course and I'm sure I'll be corrected on it.

Any hoo, what sort of world Europe would Stalin build if he was allowed to get on with things with minimal British/American interference? I highly doubt he would have conceded to mass annexations as many people seem to think, too many foreigners having to join the Politburo in that case, but how might he personally have redrawn borders of the new puppet states? How much would he actually be happy with controlling? Would OTLs Warsaw Pact been sufficient in supply the long dreamed off buffer with the west?

Anyway, thoughts and opinions and such.

 

[Snake Featherston]

OK, no. Just....no. I have never said the Soviets have the power or the will to overrun all of Europe.

 

[Revolutionary Todyo]

OK, no. Just....no. I have never said the Soviets have the power or the will to overrun all of Europe.

Yes I know that, but you did say they would have the capability of beating the Nazis to such an extent that Soviet power would be greatly increased compared to OTL due to lack of massacres and destruction of industry on the Eastern front.

It was in the thread about the USSR "winning" the Cold War. And overrun would not be the best word, I'n not claiming that T-34s will be rolling through Paris and Rome in 1945, but friendly governments at least.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Yes I know that, but you did say they would have the capability of beating the Nazis to such an extent that Soviet power would be greatly increased compared to OTL due to lack of massacres and destruction of industry on the Eastern front.

It was in the thread about the USSR "winning" the Cold War. And overrun would not be the best word, I'n not claiming that T-34s will be rolling through Paris and Rome in 1945, but friendly governments at least.

Only if the Nazis make decisions in certain situations that make this plausible. It's quite possible for a stronger USSR to halt them rather further west, but without US logistical aid there is a huge gulf between what the USSR could do on its own and Soviet armies overrunning the entirety of Europe, which is entirely outside their capabilities.

 

[Patukov]

Only if the Nazis make decisions in certain situations that make this plausible. It's quite possible for a stronger USSR to halt them rather further west, but without US logistical aid there is a huge gulf between what the USSR could do on its own and Soviet armies overrunning the entirety of Europe, which is entirely outside their capabilities.

So what would be the farthest point that the Red Army could reach in Europe? The Rhine?

 

[Snake Featherston]

So what would be the farthest point that the Red Army could reach in Europe? The Rhine?

The Rhine in the West, the boundaries of Greece in the East, as the USSR will at least initially expect that quite a few European countries will go Communist without direct Soviet involvement, while the USSR will have a rather larger indirect sphere.

 

[lukedalton]

So what would be the farthest point that the Red Army could reach in Europe? The Rhine?

Without Allied logistical support? On their own? Probably some KM after the original URSS border...remember just going to OTL point stressed the Soviet logistic almost to the breaking point

 

[Snake Featherston]

Without Allied logistical support? On their own? Probably some KM after the original URSS border...remember just going to OTL point stressed the Soviet logistic almost to the breaking point

If the USSR is stronger when the Nazis invade it, the Nazis won't get near as far as IOTL, leaving the USSR with a rather stronger manpower situation and overall logistics than IOTL. IOTL it was able to raise huge armies despite losing the bulk of its most manpower-rich territories, if it retains rather more of them, this actually *increases* Soviet manpower *more* than IOTL, while correspondingly worsening by far a German economy that doesn't have the ability to loot Russia as it required for its buildups to work.

 

[Snake Featherston]

And the scenario in A Sound of Thunder is somewhat more nuanced than that. Hitler does postpone Barbarossa intending to overwhelmingly defeat the British at sea, while the British make some very crucial mistakes from overconfidence. Even with his naval buildup, it takes the entry of Japan into WWII to get the British to agree to a cease-fire, which is anything but Hitler's idea of overwhelmingly defeating it. Germany then decides that having "defeated" the French and the British it can now take out the USSR which is even simpler. So with an economy in chaos from retooling for warfare, an army that had been de-mobilized to make more subs, ships, and so on, the Nazis are thrown into a giant version of OTL Kursk, Stalingrad, and Moscow in terms of destroying their logistics, after which point the Soviets throw large-scale strikes into Poland and Romania, from which point the German army runs out of oil and military cohesion.

Thus most of the lightning Soviet advances occur because they're advancing practically against no resistance, while in contrast to their OTL behavior the USSR for primarily propaganda purposes is putting its soldiers as model representatives of the proletariat as a deliberate contrast to Nazi Terror, which by the end of ATL WWII in Europe is the only thing olding the Nazi Empire together at all.

Even then the Nazis, where their armies are actually able to find a means of strong resistance can and do bloody the USSR, but without oil their armor is useless, and with the loss of areas like Silesia their weaponry starts running out of spare parts.

 

[Sam R.]

Italy under Togliatti, or rather, under an all socialist unity government would look more like Yugoslavia than Poland, Hungary or Romania. Though Romania gives us an interesting example on how to purge independent stalinists.

France would be quite interesting, give the PCF's slavish devotion to the Moscow line. Again, though, given the historical "all democratic party" governments installed in 1945, France would not initially be run by the PCF, but by a coalition.

Without hostile Westerns in Europe would the occupied countries see a less aggressive programme? No. The events of 1949 were preceded by attacks on social democrats and liberal democrats in the East.

The more interesting question is "what are the political results of the 1950s soviet-style economy recession when France and Italy are independent but left?"

Personally, I'm predicting Humanist socialism in Poland, Hungary, Italy, France, Yugoslavia, Germany and a Humanist socialist line in the Soviet Political Committee. Maybe this is a way to get a Nagy/Mikoyan humanist / workers-council revolution in the Soviet sphere.

Without political control over Italy, but, with Italy under socialist control, there'll be an external reservoir of socialist criticism of attempts to repress workers council movements in Poland and Hungary in *1956. This is likely to force Tito and the French party over; and without the "Nato" threat, there isn't a decisive moment in debate over leaving the warsaw pact. Correspondingly, a socialist german confederation is going to be much less retarded than the actual East German government without the threat of Nato West Germany.

yours,
Sam R.

 

[lukedalton]

If the USSR is stronger when the Nazis invade it, the Nazis won't get near as far as IOTL, leaving the USSR with a rather stronger manpower situation and overall logistics than IOTL. IOTL it was able to raise huge armies despite losing the bulk of its most manpower-rich territories, if it retains rather more of them, this actually *increases* Soviet manpower *more* than IOTL, while correspondingly worsening by far a German economy that doesn't have the ability to loot Russia as it required for its buildups to work.

Depends of the PoD and by who is in charge and the URSS raised the huge armies thanks to the fact that the industrial and agricoltural effort was done by the USA freeing lot of men, if that not happen. Take in consideration that a better initial effort of the Red Army mean that Stalin as less incentive to give a more free hand to his generals and take away the political official for the duration, so this in the long run can hamper their effort.
Regarding Italy, the only situation where Togliatti is put on charge of a italian goverment is the Red Army in Rome...if Italy is not properly invaded and suffer a total state collapse as OTL PFI grasp on the nation is too strong

 

[Snake Featherston]

Depends of the PoD and by who is in charge and the URSS raised the huge armies thanks to the fact that the industrial and agricoltural effort was done by the USA freeing lot of men, if that not happen. Take in consideration that a better initial effort of the Red Army mean that Stalin as less incentive to give a more free hand to his generals and take away the political official for the duration, so this in the long run can hamper their effort.
Regarding Italy, the only situation where Togliatti is put on charge of a italian goverment is the Red Army in Rome...if Italy is not properly invaded and suffer a total state collapse as OTL PFI grasp on the nation is too strong

Except that if the USSR halts the Germans further west the Germans are weaker, the USSR is stronger, and it needs US Lend-Lease rather less. I get it that people want to argue strictly from OTL in situations where they want to argue "It's an ATL" in others, but perhaps they should actually consider that a USSR able to tap into even more manpower than IOTL in an even stronger strategic position than IOTL may not in fact be waging a war directly akin to OTL.