Soviet Union starts WWII

[KraytKing]

Point taken. It was only a minor nitpick to begin with, I didn't mean to contradict you in any way.

[Alkaloid]

I'm a bit baffled by the motivations of all the Western European countries here. Why are they watching an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union start a decade long military build up in preparation for invasion and doing nothing about it? No nation in history has done that. In OTL, the Nazis began their build up, the French and British countered them with a combination of attempted diplomatic solutions and their own re armament programs as well as fortifying their borders (the Maginot Line, the English Channel and the worlds largest and most powerful navy). The Soviets likewise we re arming, but not strictly to counter the German build up.

I can see in your scenario the possibility of Germany not doing anything about it because they are prevented from doing so by England, France and the US, but even in that scenario the Western Europeans will surely see the threat and take steps to counter it if they do just plan to allow Germany to be used as a buffer state.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

They're still not going to hold against a massive numerical disparity and good enemy weaponry.

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?

Given some of the arbitrary random hamstringings you've imposed on both sides, it's kind of hard to say.

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

Why? Did a space wizard randomly lobotomize all their tank designers?

I mean, tank design evolution proceeded in peacetime just like in wartime. You can see very significant advances between the typical tank design of 1939 and the designs of 1934, and significant advances from 1929 to 1934.

[Thanas]

If Germany is happy about the end result of WWI and thus does not go fascist - which would mean either a German victory or at least a white peace - then there is no reason to assume it would disarm. With Versailles not happening that means the soviets have a much larger challenge, especially if the German Empire did gain territory in the east. The German Imperial Navy alone is a much more significant threat, as is what is probably at this point a highly maneuverable, quite large and well-equipped army with millions of reservists to call up.

[Alkaloid]

If Germany is happy about the end result of WWI and thus does not go fascist - which would mean either a German victory or at least a white peace - then there is no reason to assume it would disarm. With Versailles not happening that means the soviets have a much larger challenge, especially if the German Empire did gain territory in the east. The German Imperial Navy alone is a much more significant threat, as is what is probably at this point a highly maneuverable, quite large and well-equipped army with millions of reservists to call up.

Realistically in that event you'd probably see the other western nations not disarming to anywhere near the levels they did either. All countries have to scale down their armies significantly, economics demands it, but in theory they could have kept them at a higher state of readiness. (It would actually be interesting to see what effects that has on population growth and suffrage, given it would have involved keeping a larger number of women in the workforce post war)

There's nothing in the OP about Versailles not happening, so it's not unreasonable to assume Scapa Flow happens as well, but given that the RN now gets to focus all of it's attention on the RM without having to worry about the battle of the Atlantic I'm not sure it makes a huge difference. Japan would probably see a lot less initial success in the event that the RN could send significantly more of its effective forces into the Pacific early as well, assuming continental Europe and the British aisles hadn't fallen by 1941 which given they've all been arbitrarily ignoring the Soviets preparing to invade is unlikely.

But given the scenario is apparently every country west of Poland is effectively disarmed, that's what we have to work with, although it would help if the OP would specify why the are disarmed in this event.

[Thanas]

There's nothing in the OP about Versailles not happening

In my version, Germany comes out of World War One generally satisfied with the way of the world

No way that this will happen with Versailles and Scapa.

[KraytKing]

Apologies if it seemed some of what I said was arbitrary. Rather, that is simply where light shines through the gaps in my knowledge.

Simon - the offensive starts in 1939. The build-up began a few years prior. Therefore, a tank that entered mass production in late 1939-early 1940 will not be available in massive numbers. Whatever designs were around in the relevant time period are not changed. By "older tanks," I meant 1939-vintage. Of course, they might have advanced more rapidly given the increased rate of buildup. If you can put together an argument, then sure. I'm just going off of history.

Britain and France disarmed, but then rearmed to the extent they did when Germany got feisty IRL. Same with Germany. If it makes sense historically, then their army is larger. Remember, my first question was whether or not this scenario was plausible and how to make it so if not.

Why did the Western Allies simply sit by and watch aggressively expansionist Germany and do nothing? I'm saying, I want to know what they would have done, within limits of real life. If they did nothing with Germany fucking around, then why would the do something when the Soviets start absorbing countries they care even less about?

And the German army. Historically, the French and British had shit armor and mobility when they thought they had highly maneuverable, advanced armies. Part of it was leadership. However, with Germany experiencing the same revelations as the French and British, there is no reason to expect them to have astronomically better weapons and tactics. The Soviets, on the other hand, go through something similar to Germany IRL. Total revamp. Their old ideas failed them last time, they now need new ones. Thus, lots of tanks, and better, if not perfect, doctrine for them.

I have an improved version of the story, but it's a bit long and I'm looking for feedback. I plan on expanding it as time permits. Should I put in User Fiction?

[Thanas]

Your story makes no sense without being able to explain how Germany was happy with the results of WWI.

[KraytKing]

Total redo in the new one. Germany is still pissed, but Hitler dies and the National Socialists disappear into history.

[Thanas]

Total redo in the new one. Germany is still pissed, but Hitler dies and the National Socialists disappear into history.

*sigh*

You do not seem to understand that movements like the NSDAP are not coming out of nowhere. Without Hitler, another anti-democratic, revanchist party would simply take its place, it might just not be as extreme. So you would still deal with a hostile Germany on the path to rearmament. The scary part is that they might actually be run by somebody competent, like an experienced general/Field Marshal like von Lettow-Vorbeck.

[KraytKing]

Where should I post the long version? See the end of my last post.

[Starglider]

Remember that the Soviet Union would not be getting the 20 million tonnes of goods that it historically got from the US and UK.

[Solauren]

Where should I post the long version? See the end of my last post.

Kid, you clearly have no idea what lead up to World War 2, so stop trying.

You are embarrassing whatever education system you are part of, and any relatives or ancestors you had that were involved in World War 1 or World War 2.

[KraytKing]

Mate. Fuck off.
Seriously, I'm not an idiot. I know that National Socialism, even if Hitler's brand failed, had a serious chance of taking off. I know that the Soviets got quite a bit of war material from the Western Allies. I also know that the Western Allies were famously reluctant to start a war in 1939. I doubt they would want Germany doing so either in this scenario.

I am more than willing to accept advice given here. That is the purpose of me posting in a forum, rather than simply thinking. I will take advice from individuals who illustrate their own knowledge with clear facts and arguments. If I disagree, I will argue. If you convince me, I will acknowledge as much. See my previous posts in this thread for proof. If assertions of my ignorance are made in an insulting manner with no evidence or even specific reasons, why should I believe it?

TL;DR: I think you are wrong. If you give me good reason, I'll accept that you are not. Fair?

Total redo in the new one. Germany is still pissed, but Hitler dies and the National Socialists disappear into history.

*sigh*

You do not seem to understand that movements like the NSDAP are not coming out of nowhere. Without Hitler, another anti-democratic, revanchist party would simply take its place, it might just not be as extreme. So you would still deal with a hostile Germany on the path to rearmament. The scary part is that they might actually be run by somebody competent, like an experienced general/Field Marshal like von Lettow-Vorbeck.

One of the competent generals who was entirely opposed to the German offensive into Poland, yes? One of the ones who still thought in terms of WWI tactics, with their fortresses and mass assaults? Who knew that fighting Russia alone was a bad idea, and who might have had the foresight NOT to piss off their only allies with a the Red Menace looming so near?

That's the one, right?

[Thanas]

One of the competent generals who was entirely opposed to the German offensive into Poland, yes? One of the ones who still thought in terms of WWI tactics, with their fortresses and mass assaults? Who knew that fighting Russia alone was a bad idea, and who might have had the foresight NOT to piss off their only allies with a the Red Menace looming so near?

That's the one, right?

Are you missing the point on purpose?

[KraytKing]

One of the competent generals who was entirely opposed to the German offensive into Poland, yes? One of the ones who still thought in terms of WWI tactics, with their fortresses and mass assaults? Who knew that fighting Russia alone was a bad idea, and who might have had the foresight NOT to piss off their only allies with a the Red Menace looming so near?

That's the one, right?

Are you missing the point on purpose?

Just saying, very few individuals would have been able to or even attempted to replicate Hitler's success in the beginning of the war. Another leader, such as the one you suggested, might have aligned with France and Britain facing a far greater threat to the East, which works within my story.

I realize now that my response was a bit rude. I apologize, I was in a bad mood. Thanks for the assistance, I'll use him in my scenario.

[Thanas]

You are still missing the fucking point. There is no way you can have Versailles and still have a happy Germany. It just defies all logic.

[KraytKing]

I thought I was clear. Germany isn't happy; the man at the top just isn't batshit-crazy, and grudgingly allies with France and Britain, when granted certain concessions after the war, rather than be absorbed effortlessly into the far more powerful Soviet Union. Only Hitler could do otherwise.

[Elheru Aran]

A better way to approach it is simply to eliminate Versailles and have a peace treaty at an earlier point in WWI. But the big problem is that historically France was feeling quite vindictive after WWI, and would not have been interested in anything but an extremely punitive peace. I'm not sure how early in the game they would've been okay with a more mutually acceptable treaty.

[Sea Skimmer]

A better way to approach it is simply to eliminate Versailles and have a peace treaty at an earlier point in WWI. But the big problem is that historically France was feeling quite vindictive after WWI, and would not have been interested in anything but an extremely punitive peace. I'm not sure how early in the game they would've been okay with a more mutually acceptable treaty.

France had every reason to be punishing, after the Germans tried to cripple them fiscally in 1871, and then literally poisoned the wells across large tracts of the French countryside among other wonderful feats of warfare. Seriously, its not like the French went and spent all the money they demanded on gold plates, or even on fortifications like Germany did after 1871. It went into literally filling in the damn holes.

The fact is both sides entered WW1 so willingly over such a trivial (taken on its own) matter wanting to settle very longstanding disputes, and in a manner which would not simply lead to another major war in 20 years time as had been the long term trend of Europe. Germany tried to make that happen in 1871, but they underestimated what it would take for various reasons, and because they had no navy and had not actually reached the point of occupying all of France were in no position to make strategically decisive demands for territory internationally. They also had reasons domestically to need a short war, such as the massive disruption to the German railroad system it was causing.

As it was thanks to the US and a fear of communism taking over Germany in 1919, if it were broken up into independent states like it was before 1866 and France actually wanted, Versailles didn't go far enough for this goal either and thus another war went and happened. Naturally on the third attempt folks learned better, and Germany was just physically broken up and dominated by occupation after WW2.

Some slight chance existed the Germans could have won in 1914 quickly with maximum hindsight, but had they done so they would have annexed Belgium and Holland into tributary state status and demanded all kinds of overseas colonies, which the British would have kept fighting over THAT for some absurd amount of time. This would also lead to a much earlier implosion of the Russian capacity to fight, with some rather hard to gauge effects on the stability of the Russian government. The Tsar could probably withstand merely loosing a quick war if the French lost first, but not a sustained bloodshed.

Side problem is part of how Germany would ever win 1914 would be to basically let the Russians crush Austria and East Prussia completely, which would make Russia look rather good early on. And thus a lot more likely to try to keep up a war until actual implosion....which means Germany would try to do what it did in 1918, occupy and split apart Russia to again, bring about a victory which does not leave an economically viable future threat on its flank. Which doesn't really leave a place for a Soviet invasion of Europe if the Ukraine is a German satellite. The next war would probably be about Russia trying to get the Ukraine back or the Ukraine trying to invade Turkey.

[K. A. Pital]

Remember that the Soviet Union would not be getting the 20 million tonnes of goods that it historically got from the US and UK.

More people would die, war would drag on longer, but the end result would be the same. Logistics + geography.

This would also lead to a much earlier implosion of the Russian capacity to fight, with some rather hard to gauge effects on the stability of the Russian government.

An earlier implosion would probably still have the demise of the monarchy, but the endgame could be anything from a wide-ranging coalition government to the Bolshevik one that triumphed IRL.

To clarify: when I said 1945 army, I meant in terms of organization and size, not technology.

This would be still such a complete steamroll. Soviet deficiencies in early 1941 were not in terms of technology - more in terms of organization. The mechanized units were suboptimally organized, and if you allow all the adjusments in organization and doctrine that happened until 1945 to be there in 1941, opponents are going to be wiped like a moth against a windshield when going at 200 kph. Trust me, it would not be pretty.

But then, from the ashes of the old society, a world socialist republic would rise *hums the song*

[Alkaloid]

A better way to approach it is simply to eliminate Versailles and have a peace treaty at an earlier point in WWI.

Or, I think, have it later.

If once the French/British troops breached the Hindenburg line the Germans didn't surrender, or were only willing to offer a conditional surrender then we'd end up with a different scenario altogether, something like a "treaty of Berlin", which is signed in the ruins of the Reichstag on top of a Mark V.

That way, even if the treaty conditions were exactly the same, the stab in the back myth wouldn't take off, and there'd be a lot of people with living memory columns of defweated German troops being marched about inside Germany by victorious enemy forces last time they started getting expansionist. They'd still be unhappy, but they'd be much less likely to want to start nicking other countries and more likely to be isolationist.

[Thanas]

A better way to approach it is simply to eliminate Versailles and have a peace treaty at an earlier point in WWI.

Or, I think, have it later.

If once the French/British troops breached the Hindenburg line the Germans didn't surrender, or were only willing to offer a conditional surrender then we'd end up with a different scenario altogether, something like a "treaty of Berlin", which is signed in the ruins of the Reichstag on top of a Mark V.

That way, even if the treaty conditions were exactly the same, the stab in the back myth wouldn't take off, and there'd be a lot of people with living memory columns of defweated German troops being marched about inside Germany by victorious enemy forces last time they started getting expansionist. They'd still be unhappy, but they'd be much less likely to want to start nicking other countries and more likely to be isolationist.

Very doubtful that this would unfold this way to be honest. Especially because WWI was not an expansionist war by Germany.

[Alkaloid]

Very doubtful that this would unfold this way to be honest. Especially because WWI was not an expansionist war by Germany.

Getting rid of the far rights ability to blame minorities for 'betraying' Germany and causing them to lose the war will have a significant effect on if/how they rise to power and what their goals are.

And I'd say it's debatable that it wasn't an expansionist move on Germany's part, and even it wasn't it's a fairly academic point when Germany spent 4 years occupying most of Belgium, a good chunk of France and assorted sections of Eastern Europe. And shipping their citizens to German factories as forced labour for the war effort. While the chancellor had a report in his desk draw outlining what they should annex, which parts should be vassal states and which parts oppressed buffer states.

[Thanas]

And I'd say it's debatable that it wasn't an expansionist move on Germany's part, and even it wasn't it's a fairly academic point when Germany spent 4 years occupying most of Belgium, a good chunk of France and assorted sections of Eastern Europe.

The events of a war do not make the war an expansionist one. Otherwise the USA would have conducted an expansionist war in WWII given how it occupied most of Europe and Asia.

And shipping their citizens to German factories as forced labour for the war effort. While the chancellor had a report in his desk draw outlining what they should annex, which parts should be vassal states and which parts oppressed buffer states.

The german military had no strategic war aims when the war started, in fact you can easily find a lot of Historians arguing that they never even finalised the war goals during the war. It is one of the reasons why WWI was such a failure of strategy.